IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5207 of 2005 HARI NANDAN SINGH SON OF SHRI KAULESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-POKHRA, P.S. TOWN, POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-VAISHALI, HAJIPUR. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR. 4. BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, NEW VEER KUER SINGH COLONY, P.S. TOWN, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALLI …….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the Bank : Mr. G.K. Agrawal, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ram Das Singh, A.C. to S.C.12. ----------- 09/ 26.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.10.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 209 of 2002-03 by which District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali, Hajipur has set aside order dated 17.02.2003 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur in Case No. 2 of 2001-02 and remanded the case to the court of District Certificate Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur( respondent no.3) for fresh consideration. 3. It transpires that this case was taken up on 25.09.2006 and after considering the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner this Court directed him to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) with the Respondent-Bank and on deposit of the said amount, the order of 2 execution of warrant of arrest of the petitioner was to remain stayed. The Respondent-Bank was also to file rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit. 4. Thereafter the case was again taken up on 16.10.2006 and an affidavit was filed by the Respondent-Bank stating therein that the Bank was ready to compromise the entire matter under one time settlement scheme if the petitioner pays Rs.1,25,000/- by 30.11.2006. In reply to the said statement learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that he had already paid Rs. 57,000/- and with regard to the remaining Rs. 68,000/- he sought time for taking instruction from his client and hence the case was directed to be listed after three weeks. 5. When the case was again taken up on 20.11.2006 no affidavit was filed by the petitioner and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner one week time was granted to seek instruction and file an affidavit with regard to mode and manner of payment of balance amount. Since then the matter has remained pending and no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with respect thereto. 6. Today learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 20.11.2006 he had got no instruction from his client who has neither informed him about any payment of money to the Respondent-Bank nor he had approached him for filing any affidavit with respect thereto although learned counsel had duly informed the petitioner about every step and order. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this 3 case as well as the attitude of the petitioner it is apparent that he has not complied the order of this Court and had taken advantage of the interim order passed on 25.09.2006 for about four and half years and still has not contacted his counsel for the needful. 8. As per the arguments of the parties and the materials on record also this court does not find any merit in this writ petition nor does it find the petitioner to be entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Devendra/ ( S.N. Hussain, J.)