IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.5209 of 2010 Deepak Kumar, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Sihama, P.O. Sihama, P.S. Matihani, Distt. Begusarai at present Ratanpura, District-Begusarai.. ………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor Veerchand Patel Marg, Bihar, Patna 3. The Managing Director, Sri Pradeep Kumar, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor Veerchand Patel Marg, Bihar, Patna 4. District Manager, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, State Food Corporation, Gopalganj, Bihar 5. District Supply Officer, Gopalganj, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh 6. District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Transport Committee, Gopalganj, Sri Bala Murgandi 7. Gopal Prasad Jee, son of Bhaiw Lal Sah, resident of village- Manbodh, Parsauni Unchakagaon, Distt. Gopalganj 8. Umesh Kumar, son of Sri Ram Kripal Singh, resident of village- Mushraui, P.O. Dagfaul, Distt. Gopalganj… …………………………Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S R.K.Verma, Sr. Advocate and Rajnish, Advocate For the Resp. Corpn.: M/S. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate and A.N.Rai, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anant Kumar, A/C to AAG II ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for the respondent-Corporation and for the State. The petitioner claims willful disobedience of the order dated 20.9.2010 of this Court. By the said order this Court had dismissed 2 the writ petition but on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be permitted to represent before the authorities of the respondent-Corporation in view of the fact that there is flood in several parts of the Gopalganj District and they may consider including his name in the panel of Transporting and Handling Agent as the requirement would be much more than under normal circumstances. In the said circumstances, this Court had directed that if the petitioner files representation in this regard, then the authorities of the Corporation shall consider the same expeditiously in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have not given reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the same amounts to violation of the order of this Court. The said submission does not appear to be correct. It is true that the first part of the order dated 17.2.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation reiterates the reason for rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioner but in the second paragraph it has been clearly mentioned that 3 there being no flood in Gopalganj District, there was no requirement of Transporting and Handling agent. The same cannot be said to be non-application of mind because the only basis on which the petitioner was supposed to file representation was the possible requirement of more Transporting and Handling Agent. That not being found acceptable by the authorities, there can be no question of holding them in contempt of this Court. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)