IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No. 262 of 2010 In CWJC No. 14359 of 2010 ==================================================== Arvind Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Awadh Kishore Prasad Sharma, resident of Flat No. 501(W) Keshav Place, Bailey Road, Khajpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District – Patna …….…… Petitioner / Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Patna, 3. The Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna, 4. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, 5. Prashant Kumar Shahi, S/o (Name not known to the petitioner), Advocate General, Govt. of Bihar, Resident of Shahi Building, Shahi Lane, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, P.S. Kotwali, District – Patna, 6. Lalit Kishore, S/o (Not known to the petitioner), Addl. Advocate General, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Resident of Ram Niwas, Behind Sri Ram Palace Apartment, Boring Canal Road, Patna, District – Patna …………………………………….…… Respondents / Respondents. =================================================== APPEARANCE For the petitioner: Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State: Mr D.K. Sinha, AAG 2. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 11.04.2011. This application for review is made by the writ petitioner for review of our order dated 31st August 2010 made on CWJC No. 14359 of 2010. Learned Advocate Mr Dinu Kumar has appeared for the applicant. He has submitted that the 2 specific averments made in the writ petition in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23 & 24 have not been considered by this Court. We may note here that the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs are vague and that we have already observed under our order dated 31st August 2010 that in case of professional misconduct committed by an Advocate, the remedy lies before the Bar Council. No other ground is raised before us. The application is without merit and is accordingly rejected. Under our order under review we had directed the applicant to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) in the Registry of this Court within one week from the date of the order. The applicant has not deposited the amount of cost nor has he approached this Court for extension of time. We direct the applicant to deposit the said amount of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) in the Registry on or before 15th April 2011 failing which the Registry is directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the applicant. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )