IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.116 of 2006 CHOWDHARY IMRAN RAZA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Advocate For the Opposite parties : Mr. N.K.Sinha, Additional Advocate General-X Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General-X ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 14th August, 2008. The writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 1739 of 2004) filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 4th October, 2004, by the following order: - “The writ petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to grant him regular promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Social Securities, or in alternative to grant him selection grade scale in view of the decision of the State Government, as contained in Annexure-10. Owing to the nature of the prayer made by the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner should represent his case before respondent no.2 and in case, it is so done, the same would be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by respondent no.2 within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.” - 2 - 2. The petitioner made representation on 1st December, 2004, pursuant to the liberty granted by the order dated 4th October, 2004. But since the said representation was not disposed of within the time granted in the order dated 4th October, 2004, the present contempt application (M.J.C.) has been made. 3. It is pertinent to notice here that by way of reminder another representation was made by the petitioner to the authorities on 11th June, 2007. 4. Opposite party no.2 has responded to the contempt application and shown cause on 4th July, 2006. 5. Thereafter the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the show cause submitted by the Opposite party no.2 on 17th May, 2007 and supplementary affidavit on 25th May, 2007. 6. When the matter came-up before us on 8th July, 2008, the Government counsel took time to find out as to whether the representation dated 1st December, 2004 made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 4th October, 2004 has been disposed of by the competent authority or not. 7. Today, Mr. N.K.Sinha, Additional Advocate General-X submitted that representation dated 1st December, 2004 has not been disposed of. He, however, submitted that the subsequent representation dated 11th June, 2007, on the same lines on which the earlier representation was made on 1st December, 2004, has been disposed of on 10th August, 2007. He, however, conceded that the - 3 - decision dated 10th August, 2007, taken on the representation made by the petitioner on 11th June, 2007, has not been communicated to the petitioner. He placed before us the original file wherein the representation dated 11th June, 2007 has been disposed of on 10th August, 2007. 8. Obviously, the petitioner could not have been aware of the decision dated 10th August, 2007, which has not been communicated to him. 9. That the representation dated 1st December, 2004 has not been disposed of by the respondent is an admitted position. Non-disposal of the representation dated 1st December, 2007, not only within the time granted by the Court but also until date, technically amounts to disobedience of the order dated 4th October, 2004. The question is: whether for non-disposal of representation dated 1st December, 2004, which is technically disobedience of the order dated 4th October, 2004, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 need to be committed to contempt of this Court. We do not think so. Particularly, because the subsequent representation made by the petitioner on 11th June, 2007 on the same lines has been disposed of on 10th August, 2007. 10. Yet, another important aspect is that the petitioner has been granted Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) vide order dated 10th April, 2006. 11. We, accordingly, dispose of this contempt - 4 - application (M.J.C.) by the following order: - (i) That the respondent no.2 shall deliver/send the copy of the order dated 10th August, 2007 to the petitioner as early as possible and in no case later than two weeks from today. (ii) If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said decision, it will be open to him to challenge the legality and correctness of that order in appropriate proceedings. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-