IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3122 of 2006 SANJAY KUMAR & ORS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh For the respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 26th August, 2008 The present contempt application has been filed by the petitioners alleging that the order dated 13th September, 2006 has not been complied with. 2. The order dated 13th September, 2006 reads thus: “2. Petitioners in all these writ petitions were selected as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force whereafter they were removed from the post of Constable on the ground that the appointment process itself was vitiated. The matter was entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation for enquiry. The C.B.I. authorities having enquired the matter submitted their report to the Central Reserve Police Force authorities and having considered the stand taken by the Central Reserve Police Force authorities and the Central Bureau of Investigation authorities, this Court disposed of other similar matters bearing CWJC. Nos.14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005 under order dated 27.2.2006 which order was subsequently modified under order no.4 dated 27.7.2006 passed in MJC. No.1306 of 2006. 3. It is agreed between the counsel for the parties that prayer made in these four writ petitions is also covered by the orders of this Court dated 27.2.2006 passed in CWJC. Ns.14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005 duly modified under order no.4 dated 27.7.2006 passed 2 in MJC. No.1306 of 2006. 4. In the circumstances, these four writ petitions are disposed of exactly in the same terms which is contained in the aforesaid two orders dated 27.2.2006 passed in CWJC. Nos.14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005 and order dated 27.7.2006 passed in M.J.C. No.1306 of 2006.” 3. It transpires from the order dated 13th September, 2006 that the petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of in the light of the decision in two writ petitions , namely, CWJC. Nos.14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005. 4. In response to the contempt application, cause has been shown by the respondents wherein it is stated that appeals have been filed aggrieved by the order passed in CWJC. Nos. 14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005 and these appeals are pending. It is stated that in view of the fact that entire matter is subjudice before the Division Bench, the order has not been complied with. 5. Although, there is some merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that for want of any interim order, the authorities are bound to comply with the order dated 13th September, 2006, but , in our considered view, since the impugned order has been challenged in appeals and those appeals are pending, it may not be reasonable to infer that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the order dated 13th September, 2006. 3 6. No case for any action under contempt jurisdiction is made out. 7. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-