IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2419 of 2011 ====================================================== Sushma Kumari .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Dr. Rajdeo Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 4 14-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had directed the Vice Chancellor to give notice to the petitioner for the date and time for appearance setting out the reasons, materials and grounds on which it was proposed to hold that she has used unfair means. No such notice was served upon the petitioner. Rather cryptic show cause has been filed that notice had been issued to her not disclosing in what manner it was issued and what was the content of the notice. The show cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 states at paragraph-2 that in pursuance of the directions of the Court the Vice Chancellor had fixed 14.12.2011 at 12.00 for personal hearing of the petitioner and for redressal of her grievance. A copy of the show cause Patna High Court MJC No.2419 of 2011 (4) dt.14-12-2011 2 is acknowledged to have been served on the counsel for the petitioner on 8.12.2011 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he could only inform the father of the petitioner on 12.12.2011 who stated that he was away at Jamshedpur and therefore was unable to appear on 14.12.2011. The appearance was required of the petitioner and not her father. The Court is satisfied that more than sufficient notice has been given to the petitioner if she desires to protect her interest. No case for proceeding in the contempt jurisdiction is made out. If a date had been fixed and for any reason the petitioner did not appear, surely, the Vice Chancellor is expected to re-schedule the date. To obviate any further complication the petitioner is directed to appear in person before the Vice Chancellor on 10.1.2012. It is expected that the Vice Chancellor shall then proceed to finally adjudicate the matter. The contempt proceedings stand disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)