IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --------- Or. Criminal Miscellaneous No.6 of 2010 -------- ====================================================== The State Of Bihar ………………………. Petitioner Versus Shree K.K.Pathak,I.A.S.,Secretary……… Opp. Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath,AAG-III Mr. Shambhu Nath, AC to AAGIII For the Opposite Party/:- Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate & Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate. ======================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 14 06-04-2012 Heard the parties. 2. Pursuant to our order passed on 16th March, 2012 the Opposite party, Mr. K.K.Pathak has appeared in person. Through his counsel he has expressed unconditional apology and has also offered to withdraw letter dated 23rd September, 2010 (Annexure- G to the show cause) from the records of the case. Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.6 of 2010 (14) dt.06-04-201 2 / 32 2 3. On merits learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that this opposite party was not a party to C.W.J.C. No. 10032 of 2009 and a suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated only on the basis of a communication dated 16-6-2010. That communication, on the subject of meeting of Registrars of the Universities held on 15th June, 2010, has been annexed as Annexure-A. 4. That communication does create an impression that Universities were pressurized to make recovery from concerned teachers of the University without keeping in mind that some of them were protected by interim order dated 7th September, 2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10032 of 2009. The interim order granted protection not only to the three writ petitioners but similarly situated persons also. 5. On behalf of opposite party we have been shown that he had due regard for the orders of the Court as would appear from his letter dated 27th April, 2010 addressed to the Vice- Chancellor, Patna University contained in annexure-B to the show cause. Paragraphs 3 and 11 of that letter indicate that the authorities of the University were required to act as per orders of this Court. 6. However, it is apparent that the opposite party missed to notice that interim protection was available not only to those who had moved this Court but also to other similarly situated persons. On this issue, on behalf of opposite party it has been categorically asserted that no individual teacher has complained that he suffered on account of any coercive action contrary to the interim order of this Court. 7. Since the opposite party has tendered unconditional Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.6 of 2010 (14) dt.06-04-201 3 / 32 3 apology and has also agreed to withdraw annexure-G to the show cause, this Court would not like to go into the issue as to why the opposite party did not appear earlier pursuant to various directions of learned single Judge and also a direction issued earlier by a Division Bench of this Court. Now, when he has appeared and shown cause, in our view, the matter need not be pursued any further and the contempt proceeding is accordingly dropped on account of apology tendered by the opposite party. Naresh/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Vikash Jain, J)