IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.729 of 2004 ------------ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-3-2004 passed in M.J.C. No. 3066 of 1997 --------------- 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE FINANCE SECRETARY CUM-COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE LAW SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.( ADDED OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CONNECTED CONTEMPT APPLICATION) ................ APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. RAJESHWAR PRASAD SON OF BHAGWAT RAI AT PRESENT WORKING AS PEON IN THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, VIDYAPATI BHAWAN MARG, PATNA 2. SRI RAM KRIPAL YADAV, PRESIDENT, BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST VIDYAPATI BHAWAN, MARG, PATNA. 3. SRI N.K. SINHA, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT OF BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA.............................................................. RESPONDENTS. ---------- For the Appellant:- Mr. A. Amanullah, S.C.17 & Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad , Asst. Counsel to S.C.17. P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ----------- Shiva Kirti Singh, Dharnidhar Jha,JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Nobody appears for the respondents although notice was served and the respondents have appeared through counsels whose names appear in the daily cause list. 3. The only issue falling for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether while dealing with contempt application it is permissible for a court in contempt jurisdiction to take upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner different from - 2 - what was adopted by the court passing the judgment or order which had attained finality. 4. On facts we were taken through the order of the writ court dated 4-1-1996 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 2601 of 1987 as well as the order under appeal dated 15-3-2004 passed in M.J.C. No. 3066 of 1997. We find that on facts learned counsel for the appellants is correct in submitting that the direction given in exercise of contempt jurisdiction is not as per the decision passed by the writ court, rather the same is contrary to and in the teeth of the finding in paragraph-12 that no mandate can be issued to the State Government to release the amount in question i.e. Rs.25,00,000/- ( rupees twenty five lac) to the concerned Board for payment of its employees. The order under appeal has failed to consider that and it has directed the State Government to release a sum of rupees three crores (Rs.3,0000000/-) in favour of the concerned Board so that its employees may be paid their dues. 5. The Division Bench hearing this appeal at interlocutory stage had the occasion to go through the entire relevant facts as well as case laws and after considering all the relevant facts it was held that there was good case made out for stay of the order under appeal in view of recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram Vrs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2004 (7) SCC 261. We find ourselves in agreement with that order dated 10-11-2005 on facts as well as on law. It is relevant to add here that recently the apex court has reiterated the same legal position by its judgment in the case - 3 - of Union of India Vrs. Subedar Devassy PV, reported in 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 73. 6. In view of aforesaid discussions we find no option but to set aside the direction contained in the order under appeal that the State Government should release a sum of rupees three crores in favour of the concerned Board. To that extent the order under appeal is set aside and this appeal is allowed accordingly. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED THE 4TH MAY,2009 NAFR NARESH