IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1744 of 2010 MD. HASNAIN, SON OF MD. RAFI, RESIDENT OF SABZIBAGH, DARZI TOLA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, SON OF NOT KNOWN, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA, DISTRICT PATNA. ----------- 05. 02.05.2011 This petition was filed on 20.4.2010 alleging no compliance of the order dated 5.1.2010, operative portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow :- “Let the Collector, Patna consider the revision application filed against the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna City in Mutation Appeal No.01/2006-07, Annexure-3 to this application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if Collector, Patna so desires, he may also call for another report from the Circle Officer or any other subordinate revenue officer.” Under order dated 6.4.2011 notice was issued to Collector, Patna directing him to report compliance of the order dated 5.1.2010 within two weeks from 6.4.2011 failing which this Court will have no option but to direct appearance of the Collector. Collector considered the matter on 15.4.2011 and adjourned the hearing of the Mutation Case to 24.6.2011. This Court noticed the aforesaid conduct of the Collector under order dated 29.4.2011 directing his appearance. In compliance of my order dated 29.4.2011 Collector, Patna is present. He expresses his regret for fixing 24.6.2011 as the date for next hearing of Revision Case No.07 of 2007-08 filed 2 against the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna City in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2006-07. He also states that for granting early hearing in the matter the next date fixed is preponed and final order in the revision petition shall be passed, as early as possible, in any case within two weeks from the date of next hearing. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that Bench Clerk of the Collector, Patna is intermeddling in the matter at the instance of intervener who was never heard in the matter by the authorities below as he was/is not a necessary party in the proceeding. Having heard counsel for the parties including the Collector, Patna, I am of the view that instead of proceeding to investigate whether Bench Clerk of Collector, Patna is intermeddling at the instance of intervener, it is meet and proper to direct that the order preponing the next date of hearing be recalled by the Collector, Patna. Revision Case be heard on 24.6.2011 so as to avoid the impression that by preponing the date of hearing, hearing of revision petition is mere formality. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)