IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.173 of 2006 1. RENU KUMARI D/O YAMUNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHADATNAGAR, P.O. JOTIYA, P.S. GAURI CHAK, DISTRICT - PATNA 2. SANJU KUMARI W/O SARVAN KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAWATHIGHA, P.O. KAWO, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT – NALANDA ……………. APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SAHARSA 6. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA …..CONTEMNER/OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate For the respondent nos.1 to 5 :Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, GP –XVI For the respondent no.6 : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 18th November, 2008 This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 25th January, 2006, whereby the single judge dismissed the contempt application (MJC) on the ground of limitation. 2 2. The order dated 25th January, 2006 reads thus: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and JC to GP I. This application has been filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the Opp. Parties for non- compliance of this Court’s order dated 11.4.2001, as contained in annexure -1. This application was filed on 26th February, 2003 beyond a period of one year. Section 20 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 contemplates as under: “No Court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” This application , in this view of the matter, is barred by section 20 of the Act. It is, accordingly, dismissed.” 3. We are afraid that an order like this which the single judge has passed and is impugned in the present appeal, is not amenable to correction in letters patent appeal as no appeal lies from that order. 4. Letters patent appeal is dismissed, accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-