IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 569 of 2010 Suo motu contempt against (i) Collector, Kishanganj (Shri Firaque Ahmad) (ii) S D O, Kishanganj (Shri Rameshwar Singh) (iii) Circle Officer, Kishanganj (Shri Anil Kumar) *** 2 18.02.2010 The proceedings having been initiated suo motu, show cause have been filed by the Collector, Kishanganj, the Subdivisional Officer, Kishanganj and the Circle Officer, Kishanganj. They are all personally present in the Court today. Detailed facts have been noted in the writ petition while disposing of the proceedings. Suffice to say that the opposite parties, Collector of District included, are guilty of gross contempt. I say so because in the show cause of the Collector himself, he states that he was not aware of the orders of this Court and no one had tried to meet him till he received the order of this Court by FAX in the evening of 19th January, 2010 by when demolition had been carried out. He vehemently contradicts that any one had tried to meet him. It is he who locks himself and sits in Fort Knox and does not permit any one to enter in his campus. It is only under these circumstances, the petitioners were forced to fax a copy because there was no other means to reach the Collector and then to say that no one approached him is an ostrich like behaviour which is ill suited to public officers. He is equally guilty of contempt. So far as the Circle Officer is concerned, his conduct has 2 been noted in detail in the order passed in the writ petition. All I can say is that as per his own stand, the demolition had to take place any time after 25th of December, 2009 to which petitioners had been noticed. It does not take place till stay order is passed by this Court. It is demolished even before the statutory period of filing of the appeal has expired. Even till date, petitioners are not supplied with the certified copy of the order so that they could prefer their statutory remedy. All this to say that no one brought the stay order to the notice of the authorities cannot be accepted. A person who has got a stay order from the High Court and whose house has been demolished will not tell the authorities of the order cannot be accepted. I may only note that law does not prohibit public servants from doing their duty for public good but we are living in a country governed by Constitution and by rule of law and so long as that situation continues, the authorities cannot place themselves above law. All actions, however benevolent, have to be done in a lawful manner by proceeding in accordance with law. If orders are passed by this Court, they are meant to be obeyed for if the manner in which the respondents have acted is permitted then it is not just the majesty of the Court that is harmed, the rule of law would also collapse. It is because of that this Court initiated the suo motu contempt proceedings. The defence, as sought to be brought about in the show cause filed by the authorities, are rejected. The opposite parties are held guilty of contempt of deliberately ensuring violation of this Court’s orders. 3 They are held guilty as such. As the contemnors state that the petitioners have been put in possession and the hutment reconstructed, I accept their assertion in that regard. As they have purged contempt, these proceedings are carried no forward and are dropped accordingly. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)