IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1004 of 2009 1. M/S CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi through Sri Vishnu Ballav Sahay, presently its General Manager (Sales and Marketing) since Indrajeet Kumar Singh (retd.) 2. Rajesh Mishra S/o not known, Sales Manager, M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi 3. M.K.A. Siddique S/o not known Regional Sales Manager, Coal India Ltd., 23B Azad Bhawan, Sri Krishnapuri Versus 1. M/S RAJESH CHEMICALS, Dobhi Road, Gaya, a proprietorship firm having its office at Santi Niketan 19, A.P. Colony, Gaya, PS & District, Gaya through its proprietor Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Shri Ramadhar Singh 2. The State of Bihar 3. Rameshwar Choudhary, S/o not known working manager, District Industries Centre, Gaya 4. Sripati Singh, S/o not known, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Gaya 5. S.K. Mehta S/o not known, Chairman cum Managing Director and General Manager (Sales and Marketing), M/S Easter Coalfields Ltd. Computer Centre, Calcutta having its office at Sectoria, Distt. Burdwan West Bengal ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Vishwa Mohan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate ---------- 4 02-09-2009 Heard the parties. The order under appeal dated 25-8-2005 has been passed in exercise of contempt jurisdiction in a contempt petition bearing MJC no. 1601/2002. This appeal should not have been labelled as a Letters Patent Appeal but as a Misc. Appeal as per provision under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, labeling is immaterial and hence, we have heard the parties and gone through the order under appeal. In contempt jurisdiction the learned Single Judge has not decided any issue but it appears that a simple direction was made for refund of the particular amount with interest. This was ordered because the direction to allot coal for the amount 2 deposited could not be carried out. It has been submitted on behalf of Central Coalfields Ltd., the appellants, that laying down a law that all such deposits, when refunded, must carry interest will have great adverse impact and such law will not be a proper law. We do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission. In exercise of contempt jurisdiction the court has not laid down any law but has only allowed interest in equity and apparently by way of penalty. This cannot amount to laying down a law applicable in all cases. The limitation petition contained in IA no. 4865/2009 is to be considered. There is some explanation for delay between the date of impugned order, that is, 25-8-2005 till 6-12-2005 when a modification application was disposed of but the subsequent delay of more than three years and 200 days has not been explained satisfactorily. In fact there is no such explanation worth mentioning. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in the limitation petition. For both the reasons, the appeal is dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)