IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1884 of 2010 1. JAINENDRA KUMAR S/o Late Moti Chand Prasad, Assistant Professor, Surgery, PMCH, resident of G-17, Peoples Co-operative Colony, Kankarbagh, PS Kankarbagh, District Patna 2. Indra Shekhar Thakur S/o Kapildeo Thakur, Associate Professor, Surgery, PMCH, resident of Malahi Pakri, PS Kankarbagh, District – Patna 3. Uma Shankar Singh S/o Late J N Singh, Assistant Professor, Surgery, PMCH, resident of A/22, Professor Colony, Sheopuri, PS Shastri Nagar, District Patna 4. Vimal Mukesh, son of late Gouri Shankar Prasaad, Associate Professor, Sugery, PMCH, resident of Mukesh Villa, Patliputra Colony, PS Patliputra, District Patna 5. Rabindra Prasad son of late Sohrai Mahto, Assistant Professor, Surgery, IPW II, PMCH, PS Pirbahore, District Patna …Opp.parties/Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri C K Mishra son of Dr. S N Mishra, Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Dipak Kumar, father’s name not known to the appellant, Additional Director, Medical Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. Sri S N Sharma son of nsot known to the appellant, Additional Director, Medical Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Sri M L Verma son of not known to the appellant, Principal (since retired), PMCH, Patna 6. Sri N P Yadav son of not known to the appellant, present Principal, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna 7. Sri Sudhir Kumar son of not known to the appellant, Head of the Department, Surgery, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna …Opp. Parties/Respondents 8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh s/o Late Anirudh Prasad Singh, resident of 314, Patliputra Clony, PS Patliputra, District Patna … Petitioner/Respondent …..Respondents ----------- 04- 20/12/2010 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for the appellants, Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Advocate General II for 2 respondent nos. 1 to 5, and 7, and Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh for respondent no.8. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 27.10.2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in MJC No.1395 of 2007 (Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & ors.). The appellants raise a grievance before this Court that the judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of CWJC No. 2688 of 2005 (N K Singh vs. State of Bihar) and analogous cases, since reported in 2006(4) PLJR 596, is being erroneously implemented to the prejudice of the present appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that grave prejudice is being done to the present appellants because of the orders being passed by the learned single Judge in MJC No.1395 of 2007. He also submits that the present appeal is maintainable. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co- Operative Bank Ltd. V. Chunilal Nanda (AIR 2006 SC 2190). Learned counsel also apprised us elaborately on the merits of the appeal. Learned AAG submits that the appeal is not maintainable. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that appellant nos. 1 and 3 were not parties to the writ petition in the case of N K Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra), and the analogous writ petitions. Secondly, appellant nos. 2, 4, and 5 neither filed their own contempt applications for allegedly erroneous implementation of the judgment of this Court in N K Singh vs. State of Bihar (supra). Thirdly, none of the present appellants is party to 3 MJC no.1395 of 2007. Fourthly, any order in a contempt proceeding is appealable in terms of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. In that view of the matter, the appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. 3. It is indeed a frivolous appeal burdening this Court with a most unwanted litigation although learned counsel for the appellant argued in a manner as if it were a substantive writ petition. We record our strong sense of displeasure that, at the very outset, we advised the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw this appeal. Instead of doing so, he consumed the court’s time needlessly with most irrelevant and interminable submissions. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl