IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1948 of 2006 MAHESHWAR JHA Versus BIHAR STATE KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, PATNA & OTHERS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Madan Prasad Singh, No.2, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondent-State : Mr.Md. Fazal Rahman, Government Pleader-VI For the respondent No.1 : Mr. Amitesh Kumar,Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad ------ Dated, the 29th August, 2008 On 09th July, 2008, the following order came to be passed: “ In response to the contempt application, cause has been shown by opposite party nos.1 to 7. Paragraph 14 thereof reads thus: “That after the consideration of the Board’s members the grievance of the petitioner was finally approved on anticipation of the final order of the State Government so a letter no.47 dated 27.1.2005 was also sent to the industries Department for a direction to redress the grievance of the petitioner.” 2. Irrespective of whether any approval from the State government has been received or not, the Bihar State Khadi & Village Industries Board is directed to give all financial benefits to the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Board pursuant to the order dated 2.5.2006.” 3. Stand over for four weeks.” 2. Then on 13th August, 2008, the Bench passed the following order: - 2 - “Mr. Md. Fazal Rahman, Government Counsel, appears for the Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board and prays for time to enable the Board to give all financial benefits to the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Board pursuant to the order dated 2nd May,2006. 2. We are assured by the counsel that if some time is granted, the order shall be complied with. We accept the assurance given by the Counsel for the Board and adjourn the matter to 29th August,2008. 3. We make it clear that in case the order is not complied with and the financial benefits are not given as per the decision taken by the Board itself pursuant to the order dated 2nd May, 2006, the Chief Executive Officer shall remain personally present on that date before the Court. Stand over to 29th August,2008.” 3. Today in the morning when the case was called out, Mr. Madan Prasad Singh-2, advocate for the petitioner informed us that the Chief Executive Officer has been acting in defiance of the orders of this court and that the payment, as per the order dated 2nd May, 2006, has not yet been made. Prima facie, we found the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer reprehensible in not complying with the order dated 2nd May, 2006 and the two orders referred to hereinabove passed in the present contempt application. Perhaps, the Chief Executive Officer who is present in the court understood the gravity of the situation and requested us to keep the matter back to enable him to make payment of the due amount to the petitioner. We, accordingly, kept the matter back. 4. In post lunch- session, when the case was called out, the counsel for the Bihar State Khadi & Village Industries Board,Patna, handed over an account payee cheque for a sum of Rs.1,38,930/- - 3 - (Rupees one lac, thirty eight thousand, nine hundred thirty) to the counsel for the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner accepted the cheque, but he submitted that for want of any calculation furnished by the counsel for the Board, it was not possible for him to make a firm statement as to whether the amount of Rs. 1,38,930/- (Rupees one lac, thirty eight thousand, nine hundred thirty) is of entire dues. 6. Although the conduct of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board has been far from satisfactory and by non-compliance of the order dated 2nd May, 2006 and the two orders passed in the present MJC referred to hereinabove, he exposed himself to the contempt jurisdiction of this court, but now, since an amount of Rs.1,38,930/- has been paid by way of the cheque to the petitioner, we show leniency to him and do not intend to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction. 7. Contempt application (MJC) is disposed of accordingly. 8. However, we observe that if there is any shortfall in payment of outstanding amount it will be open to the petitioner to meet the Chief Executive Officer personally and bring to his notice the correct calculation, and, in that event, we direct the Chief Executive Officer to recalculate the entire amount due and payable to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 2nd May, 2006 and if any short-fall in payment is found, the remaining payment shall be made within one week of such calculation. Non-compliance may expose - 4 - the Chief Executive Officer to an action under the Contempt of Courts Act. R.M. Lodha, CJ C.K. Prasad, J. Sunil