IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2716 of 2006 1.Shailendra Kumar, son of Sri Saryug Prasad Singh, resident of village Paparnausa, P.S. Noorsarai, District Nalanda 2.Narendra Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Raj Singh, resident of village Deorarh kala, P.S.Kudra, District Kaimur 3.Sarvan Kumar Gupta, son of late Shivnath Prasad Gupta, resident of village Choti Khagol, P.S. Khagol, District Patna 4.Laxman Singh, son of Sri Jai Ram Singh, resident of village Basuri, P.S.Udvantnagar District Bhojpur-----------------petitioners Versus 1.The State of Bihar through G.S.Kang, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.A.K.Sinha, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources (Minor Irrigation) Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3.Mr.Navin Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner the then Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Patna 4.Bulo Mandal, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhbhua 5.Hazra, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhabhua 6.Durganand Jha, son of not known to the petitioner the then Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Bhabhua------------------Opp.parties ----------- 4. 25.7.2009 The contempt application has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 28.6.2006 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3835 of 2003. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that against the common order dated 28.6.2006 passed in the aforesaid writ application and large number of 2 other analogous cases, L.P.A. No. 694 of 2006 was filed along with 60 other L.P.As. which were heard and disposed of by the common order dated 15.3.2007 setting aside the order dated 28.6.2006 under contempt with certain directions to the State Government in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others : (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is submitted that the State Government has acted in terms of the directions made in the L.P.A. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government has not complied with the orders passed in L.P.A. in its true spirit. From the aforesaid conspectus of facts it is clear that no case for wilful violation of the order passed by this Court is made out. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the State authorities it is open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/