IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2990 of 2011 Smt. Chinta Devi, wife of late Mahendra Prasad at present residing at C/o Ramgati Singh, Ist Floor, (Opposite Maila Tanki), Mithapur Khagaul Road, P.S. Jakkanpur, District/Town Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Divisional Manager, Mr. Rajesh Alahabadi, son of not known to the petitioner “Jeevan Deep”, Frazer Road, Patna-800001. 2. Sri Chandra Bhushan Mishra, son of not known to the petitioner, the Manager (Claims), Life Insurance Corporation of India, through the Divisional Manager, Divisiodnal Office, “Jeevan Deep”, Frazer Road, Patna-800001. … Opposite Parties ------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Prtasad Singh, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate ---------- 04/ 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed for initiating of a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for disobedience of order dated 17.01.2011, by which C.W.J.C. No. 425 of 2005 was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the respondent-opposite party no. 2 within fifteen days, whereafter, the said authority was directed to decide the same by a speaking order within three months and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order of the authority, she will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances. 3. Now learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed a show cause, in which it is stated that the said direction has been complied and a speaking order has been passed by the authorities concerned on 15.07.2011 (Annexure `A’) and information about it has been given by the authorities to the 2 petitioner vide letter dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure B). However, for the delay unconditional apologies have been tendered by the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that Rs.5,37,500.00 has also been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of this petition. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it transpires that the order of this Court has been complied. Accordingly, this M.J.C. case is disposed of.. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum against the order of the authorities dated 15.07.2011(Annexure `A’) if she is aggrieved by it and is not satisfied with the amount paid to her. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)