IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.5115 of 2010 Poonam Kumari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors. . ----------- 5. 24.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Advocate General No. 1 for the State. Opposite party no. 2 is present in person. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 1 submits that if the District Magistrate had not reinstated the said Sunita Devi he would have expose himself to the risk of proceedings in contempt for non-compliance of the order in C.W.J.C. No. 7974 of 2007. The order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2659 of 2010 was not capable of compliance because of another order of the Court in the former writ application. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court had given specific direction for reinstatement if the order was in violation of the principles of natural justice with liberty to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. That the termination of the petitioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice is not in dispute. The petitioner is being left remediless. That an order, in the facts of a case, is 2 incapable of compliance is a good defence in contempt proceedings. The Court upholds the submission of the Additional Advocate General No. 1 that non-compliance with the order in C.W.J.C. No. 7974 of 2009 would also have exposed the District Magistrate to contempt proceeding. The District Magistrate was therefore left in a quandary with regard to two orders of the Court. If he complied with the former order rendering the latter incapable of compliance, the Court does not hold the present to be a fit case for proceeding further in the contempt jurisdiction. The proceedings are disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)