IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.16 of 2008 KAMESHWAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 12/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. This contempt application has been filed alleging non- compliance of orders of this Court dated 17.07.2007 passed in CWJC No. 605 of 2006. By the said order the writ application of the petitioner was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authorities concerned and a direction was issued to the authorities to dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance with law in the light of observations and directions of the Apex Court contained in paragraph 53 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of the representation. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner filed representation as contained in Annexure -2. The representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the Director- in-Chief by order contained in Annexure-A to the show cause rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The Director in Chief has assigned certain reasons for rejecting the said representation of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an endeavour to make this Court examine the merits of the assigned reasons in the said order of Director-in-Chief. - 2 - After going through the said order of the Director-in- Chief this Court finds that the reasons assigned for rejection of the representation of the petitioner are not altogether non est or malafide. In the circumstances, this Court does not feel inclined to pursue this matter. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said order of the Director-in-Chief in appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. With the above observations, the contempt application is dismissed. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)