IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3288 of 2003 1.MAHAVIDYALYA SHIKSHAK SANGH, Sardar Patel Memorial College, Udwantpuri, Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda through its Secretary. 2.Dr. Surendra Kumar son of late Moti Chand Prasad the Secretary, Mahavidyalay Shikshak Sangh, Sardar Patel Memorial College, Udwantpuri, Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda. 3.Mahavidyalaya Shikshakettar Karamchari Sangh, Sardar Patel Memorial College, Udwantpuri, Bihar, Sharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda, through its Secretary. 4.Ram Prasad Singh son of late Sobran Mahto, the Secretary, Mahavidyalaya Shikshakettar Karamchari Sangh, Sardar Patel Memorial College, Udwantpuri, Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Accountant General, Bihar and Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3.The Examiner of Local Accounts, Bihar and Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4.The Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5.Magadh University Bodh Gaya through its Registrar. 6.The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 7.The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. ----------- 5 17.8.2010 An application has been filed for recall of the order dated 4.8.2010 so far it relates to imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- for not filing the counter affidavit. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Magadh University and its officials would submit that in view of another of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11106 of 2002 dated 2.8.2010 this Court should take lenient view, inasmuch as, understanding on that day was that in all the pending cases counter affidavit would be filed within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 2.8.2010. Ordinarily, such plea could have been accepted had there be no judicial order dated 8.2.2010 passed in this case 2 specifically allowing prayer of counsel for the University to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. In fact, in such order this Court had also indicated that there should be a clear explanation as to when claim of the petitioners has been sent to the Auditors and therefore, this Court would find the general order dated 2.8.2010 would not cover the case like the present one. In that view of the matter, prayer for modification/recall of the order dated 4.8.2010 must be and is hereby rejected. The cost of Rs.10,000/- must be deposited by the Registrar of the University within a week from today. It would be however open for the Registrar of the University to recover the said amount from the erring officials. Heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned senior counsel for the Magadh University as also counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this writ application is directed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/ certiorari/ any other appropriate writ/ order(s)/ directions, commanding the; (i)Respondents 2 and 3 to calculate the amount of interest over the entire principal dues found by them in the report dated 1.3.02 as contained in Annexure-4 and to examine and calculate the other payable dues to some of the members of the petitioners, which were not calculated in Annexure- 4. (ii)On furnishing the report showing payable amounts, the respondents 1 and 4 to 7 be directed to pay the payable amount to the members of the petitioners without delay.” 3 Counsel for the petitioners, however, in order to support the case and claim of the petitioners has placed reliance on an interim order dated 12.3.1999 in C.W.J.C. No.5730 of 1994 which was filed by the petitioners in this case. In view of the fact that the said writ application C.W.J.C. No.5730 of 1994 is still pending and the petitioners have not mentioned this fact in the last paragraph of the writ application that they had moved for the same cause of action relating to payment of provident fund, in the opinion of this Court, it is suppression of facts. The fact that such writ application is still pending would give sufficient scope to the petitioners to press the relief for payment of interest on the amount of provident fund and therefore this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)