IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1980 of 2011 Shekhar Saran Srivastava . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 16.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Truly speaking the opposite parties should have better realized their duties to assist the Court in dispensation of justice by filing a show cause in time. Counsel for the opposite parties finds himself helpless as the instructions are not stated to have been received in time. He places before the Court a Xerox copy of the letter dated 31.10.2011 issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Road Division No. 1, Aurangabad addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Patna passed in compliance of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9451 of 2010. The grievance in the writ petition was that no proper handing over and taking over of charge was being complied with by the opposite parties and because of which the petitioner apprehends difficulties in future. The Court noticing the purely administrative nature of the dispute directed the Engineer- in- Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary to take necessary steps with due intimation of the date and time to the petitioner and officer concerned to whom the charge was 2 to be handed over so that the administrative procedure is complied with. The order dated 31.10.2011 explicitly and in no uncertain terms states that the petitioner did present himself on the appointed day but refused to sign the necessary documents. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recitals are correct. The petitioner refused to sign as the documents were not in order. It is not possible to examine these factual aspects by holding further enquiry in the contempt jurisdiction. The least that the petitioner could have done was to sign the documents with regard to handing over and taking over with his objections. If he himself declined to sign the documents when the respondents had taken steps for compliance of the order of the Court, it is difficult to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction. The petitioner may pursue such remedies as he may be advised. A Xerox copy of the letter dated 31.10.2011 produced by the opposite parties with its enclosures be kept on record. The proceeding stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)