IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.397 of 2011 KUMAR ROY, SON OF LATE YADUNADAN RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O.-BAHERI, BLOCK-BAHARI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ……. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SANTOSH KUMAR MAL, DISTRICT-MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 3. SURENDAR KUMAR RAM, DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD, DARBHANGA. 4. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 5. VIJAY KUMAR RAY, SON OF VIMAL RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.+ BLOCK-BAHERI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …… CONTEMNER/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-16. --------- 07 11.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for violating the order of this court dated 23.08.2010 passed in CWJC No.11577 of 2010. 3. By the aforesaid order, this court disposed of CWJC No.11577 of 2010 with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Darbhanga to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner before him dated 13.11.2009 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order on its own merit in accordance with law. 4. An affidavited show cause has been filed on behalf of - 2 - opposite party no.4 in which he has stated that the said order of this court has been fully complied and a detailed well considered order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga on 15.04.2011 and 21.04.2011. The opposite parties have also tendered their unqualified apology for the delay which caused inconvenience. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, but the specific direction of this court was that the order should be in accordance with law, but on consideration of the said order it will be found that it is not in accordance with law and the petitioner has been made to suffer due to the said illegality as possession of the shop has not been restored to the petitioner and it has been allowed to remain in possession of the private opposite parties without considering that the petitioner has taken loan for the said shop also. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of this court dated 23.08.2010 passed in CWJC No.11577 of 2010 was meant to restore possession to the petitioner and was not only for academic discussions in the background of Sessions Judge order. 7. In my view, the concept propounded by petitioner’s counsel is erroneous, baseless and misconceived because there is nothing in the order of this court dated 23.08.2010 directing the authorities to restore possession of the premises in favour of the petitioner, rather merely an opportunity was given to the petitioner to get the matter decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law without imposing any condition. Hence there is no question of - 3 - academic discussions. Merely by using effusive and egregious words and prodigious expressions, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot legally change the meaning of the specific direction given by this court in plain and simple terms. 8. Furthermore, from perusal of order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it is quite apparent that it is a detailed order considering various aspects of the case as per the direction of this court. This court in this contempt petition cannot decide the legality or otherwise of the said order and it is also not legal and proper for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the said order in this contempt petition, although he has got appropriate forum to do so. 9. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)