IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3217 of 2005 RAGHVENDRA PRASAD ROY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Balbhadra Singh, Adv. For the Opposite parties : Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi, Adv. ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 8th July, 2008. The petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court alleging misuse and misutilisation of various schemes of the Government like old age pension, ration to persons below poverty line, relief materials for flood affected people on the ground that in the name of non-existent population of non-existent people, it is done in the district of Samastipur. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.12.2004 by the following order: “Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Samastipur is directed to look into the matter and if the persons are not resident of that village, then they should not be provided benefit under difference schemes in the event of their names have wrongly been included in the voter list. The District Magistrate shall take decision within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion about the merit whether the name of the persons is in the voter list or not, it is for the Collector to decide - 2 - when the matter is brought to its notice.” 3. It is alleged that no enquiry has been held by the District Magistrate, Samastipur as directed in the order dated 13.12.2004 and, therefore, District Magistrate, Samastipur has exposed himself to the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The only direction that had been given in the order dated 13.12.2004 to the District Magistrate, Samstipur is to look into the matter concerning the benefits under different schemes of the Government and if the persons are not resident of the village then they should not be provided benefits under different schemes. 5. In response to the notice, the show cause has been filed by the Opposite party nos.2 to 5. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 following statement has been made: - “6. That on receipt of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court, the District Magistrate, Samastipur has taken immediately steps and passed an interim order in compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court vide his order memo no.232/Legal dated 12.3.2005, wherein and where under the District Magistrate directed the officers concerned to ensure that if the persons are not resident of the village in question and permanently settled in other places, they should not be provided benefit under different schemes in the event of their names have wrongly been included in the voter list. 7. That in compliance of the order memo no.232 legal dated 12.03.2005 of the District Magistrate, Samastipur, the Sub Divisional office, Patory vide his letter no.1179 dated 30.6.2006 communicated the report of the B.D.O., Circle Officer and the Block Supply Officer, Patory respectively to the District Magistrate, Samastipur with respect to the aforesaid matter. 8. That the Block Development Officer, Patory vide his letter no.368 dated 8.4.2006, submitted a detailed report including in respect of Indira Aawas & Old Age pension & Electoral roll too, wherein he has stated that charges leveled by the petitioner are baseless. - 3 - 9. That the Block Supply Officer, Patory also vide his letter No.62 dated 17.4.2006 submitted his report wherein he has denied the allegations of the petitioners after due verification. 10. That the Circle Officer, Patory vide his letter no.130 dated 13.3.2006 and letter no.159 dated 31.3.2006 also stated that due to devastating flood during the period in question, it ruined and displaced the persons of village Harpur Saidabad who temporarily settled themselves in another village of Harpur Saidabad Panchayat were provided relief facilities as per allotment on proper identifications. Hence, from, the facts stated above and papers/report submitted against them it will be evident that the persons who are not the resident of the village in question have not been provided benefit under different schemes.” 6. It transpires there-from that in the enquiry it has been found that the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless and the benefits under the aforesaid schemes are given to the eligible persons only. Copy of the report has been annexed. 7. Having thoughtfully considered the entire material, we are satisfied that nothing further needs to be done in this contempt application. 8. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-