IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1631 of 2008 ANITA SINGH @ ANITA KUMARI, wife of Late Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Bana Singh D/O Sri Kameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village- Sukhasan (Chakla), P.O.- Sukhasan (Chakla) P.S. Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ……. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Afzal Amanullah son of Fathers name not known to the petitioner, Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.Rajesh Kumar, Collector, Madhepura 4.Ashish Chandra, at present posted as Collector, Madhepura ………. Opp.Party ----------- 6. /01/2009 This contempt application has been filed alleging violation of order dated 4.12.2007 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.13188 of 2004. Petitioner filed the writ application stating therein that her husband was killed in an extremist attack on 27th September, 2001 in the town of Madhepura by an organized extremist gang. She submitted that the Collector, Madhepura had recommended to the Department the case of the petitioner for grant of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in terms of the Government letter no.1972 dated 9th August, 2000. In the writ application, petitioner asserted that as per the said Government decision the Collector - 2 - himself was empowered to pass orders for grant of such compensation and to absorb on Class IV post one dependent of the family of the person who was killed in an extremist or terrorist violence. Counter affidavit was filed in the writ matter by one Executive Magistrate in which it was said that the recommendation had been sent to the Department and the response of the Department was awaited and hence the allegation of the petitioner that the respondents were causing unnecessary delay in the matter was denied. This Court while disposing of the writ matter by the aforesaid order examined the said Government letter and found that the District Magistrate was the competent authority to pass final orders in the matter. Therefore, this Court directed the Collector, Madhepura to pass final order in the light of the said Government decision within three months. That having not been done, petitioner has filed this contempt application. In the contempt application, a show cause has been filed along with which an order of the Collector, Madhedpura - 3 - has been annexed as Annexure-C. By this order, the Collector, Madhedpura has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation and the appointment in terms of the said Government letter taking note of the fact that it was not established from any record or report that the husband of the petitioner had died due to any extremist or terrorist violence. For this purpose, a report was called for by the Collector, Madhepura from the S.P. which has been noticed and considered in the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the orders of this Court dated 4.12.2007 disposing of the writ application, the Collector, Madhepura had no option but to pass positive order of payment of compensation and appointment of a dependent of the family of the deceased husband of the petitioner. He submitted that the Collector, Madhedpura had already recommended the case of the petitioner for the purpose vide his letter dated 23.10.2001, which was annexed with the writ application as Annexure-4. This Court found that the Collector, Madhepura was empowered to pass final orders in the matter as per - 4 - Government decision, and therefore, direction was issued to him to pass final orders. In the circumstances, the present Collector, Madhepura could not turn around and reject the claim of the petitioner for the same. He submitted that this amounted to overreaching the orders of this Court and was clearly contempt. On the request of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner placed the earlier recommendation of the then Collector, Madhepura, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. He also placed the Government decision referred to above in the matter, a copy whereof was Annexure-7 to the writ application. After going through the recommendation of the then Collector, Madhepura dated 23.10.2001, it is apparent that the then Collector, Madhepura had not satisfied himself on the basis of any independent material or document and had not come to a conclusion on the basis of the same that the husband of the petitioner had died in an extremist or terrorist violence. From the recommendation letter, it is apparent that on the basis of the representations filed by the District Traders Association, recommendation was - 5 - made in view of the sensitivity and seriousness of the situation. This recommendation was definitely not a final decision by the then Collector, Madhepura nor was treated as such by this Court while disposing of the writ application. In the circumstances, this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Collector, Madhepura to pass final orders in the light of the Government decision. In the Government decision, while providing for compensation and appointment on a Class IV post to the dependent of the family of the deceased in an extremist or terrorist violence or communal incident or election related incident, it has to be necessarily read that the benefit of this decision can be given only if independent materials show that the death had occurred in such manner and not otherwise. Since in this contempt matter, no independent material was produced to substantiate the claim, this Court, by order dated 6.1.2009 allowed time to learned counsel for the petitioner to produce independent materials to show that the death of the deceased was on account of extremist violence. However, - 6 - no further material has been produced in this case through an affidavit or otherwise to support the claim of the petitioner that her husband had died in an extremist violence. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the Collector, Madhepura had recommended the case for grant of compensation and appointment in terms of the Government decision, he had no option but to pass final orders granting the same in compliance to the orders of this Court. This court is not in a position to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The recommendation of the Collector, Madhepura dated 23.10.2001 was definitely not the final order and was not passed on his independent objective satisfaction on independent materials for the same. Therefore, the present Collector, Madhepura in compliance to the orders of this Court has examined the matter and has passed final orders. In the final order the present Collector, Madhepura has noticed that no material has come during investigation or otherwise that the death of the husband of the petitioner was in extremist - 7 - violence and has also noticed that the recommendation of the then Collector, Madhepura was due to pressure of the District Traders Association and sensitivity and seriousness of the situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also advanced a desperate argument that the said Government decision does not contain the definition of extremist or terrorist violence and therefore any violence or incident which creates fear and ripples in the society can be treated as covered under the said Government decision. This Court is afraid that if the definition of extremist or terrorist violence is stretched that far, the same may frustrate the intent and purpose of the said Government decision. However, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, this Court refrains from making any further comment on this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and leaves the matter open to be decided in any other appropriate proceeding. So far this contempt is concerned, this Court is not persuaded to proceed with the same and the same is dropped. - 8 - Accordingly, this contempt application is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-C to the show cause in accordance with law, if she is so advised. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)