IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.59 of 2001 UPENDRA NATH DAS son of Nirmal Das, resident of Basantpur, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi. Versus 1.Sri Prabir Kumar Dhar, the CHAIRMAN,BHOJPUR ROHTAS KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK having his office at Mangal Pandey Road, Arrah, P.S. Arrah, District Bhojpur. 2.Sri N.Prasad, General Manager, Bhojpur-Rohtas Kshetriya Gramin Bank, having his office at Mangal Pandey Road, Arrah, P.S. Arrah, District Bhojpur. ----------- 5 1/4/2010 Heard Mr. Lala Sachindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Prayer in this application is to initiate a proceeding for contempt for violation of the operative portion of the order of this Court dated 23.6.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 9287 of 1999:- “In that view of the matter, this Court disposes of this matter by directing the petitioner to make a representation to the Chairman of Bhojpur-Rohtas Gramin Bank for redressal of his grievance, relying on the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.12.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1150 of 1996 and other analogous cases. It is made clear that while giving this dxirection, this Court is not making any observation on the merit of the petitioner‟s case. It is upon the respondent authority to pass a reasoned order after considering the petitioner‟s case on merit. Such other may be passed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said representation.” It is an admitted position that such representation was disposed of and the order of this Court was complied by order dated 2.9.2000 wherein the competent authority of Bhojpur- Rohtas Gramin Bank has passed the following order:- “Your representation dtd.15.7.2000 has been looked into but we regret our inability to invite you for an appointment in the Bank. In this context, keeping in view para 34 (a) of the judgment/order dtd. 23.3.94 of the Hon‟ble Patna High Court in the matter of C.W.J.C. No.572/1993, 9411/1993 and 3486/1993 we like to inform you that none from the Merit List for Scheduled Cast category, as made available to us by B.S.R.B, Patna 2 has been considered for appointment at ours for want of any vacancy in this category.” Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the aforementioned order dated 2.9.2000, while disposing of representation of the petitioner the authority has, in fact, passed the order without taking into consideration the judgment/order of this Court dated 11.12.1997 in C.W.J.C. No.1150 of 1996 and as such the authorities of the Bank have committed contempt. In the opinion of this Court such submission of counsel for the petitioner has only to be noted for its being rejected. Firstly, such order of the authority dated 2.9.2000 was made subject matter of C.W.J.C. No.11116 of 2000, but the writ application was withdrawn by the petitioner by seeking liberty to file a contempt application. That would mean that the Court hearing the writ petition was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the authority even on the ground that the same was in violation of direction of the Court. It is well settled that an order can be quashed also on the ground that the same was in violation of the order of the Court as was held by the Apex Court in the case of „Skipper Construction of India Vs. Union of India & Ors’, reported in 1996 (4) SCC-622. In that view of the matter, when the order itself was not interfered by this Court, it would be difficult to presume that 3 the authorities were in contempt because they had not considered one judgment and had gone to consider another judgment inasmuch as in the same order this Court had also made it clear that it had not gone into merits of case of the petitioner and therefore when the authorities were given liberty to dispose of the matter, it cannot be said that passing of the order on the representation was in violation of the Court‟s order. That being so, this contempt application must be held to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)