IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.5 of 2008 SANTOSH KUMAR, Son of Sri Nand Kumar Pandit, resident of village Beldari Tola, PO Khanjahapur, PS Moffassil Gaya, District Gaya…. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, District Magistrate, Gaya District, Gaya 3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jha, District Superintendent of Education, Gaya District, Gaya 4. Madhav Kumar Singh, Block Development Officer, Manpur Block, Gaya 5. Mr.Jageshwar Prasad, Headmaster, Government Primary School, Shekha Bigha, Manpur, Gaya 6. Mr. Prahalad Paswan, Mukhiya, Usri Panchayat, Manpur Block, Gaya District ….Respondents ----------- 05- 28.4.2010 Heard Mr. K M Joseph for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to Govt. Pleader no.20. This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.13994 of 2006 (Santosh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors.), for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure 1), whereby the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to submit an appropriate representation before the learned Block Development Officer, Manpur Block, Gaya, which had to be disposed of within a period of four weeks by a reasoned order. The petitioner did not receive any communication creating an impression that the representation is still pending, leading to the present contempt application. The contemners-opposite party nos.2 and 4 have placed on record their show-cause sworn on 25.2.2008, and opposite party no.3 2 has also placed on record his show-cause sworn on 21.2.2008. None of which stated that the order has been complied with and the representation has been disposed of. Therefore, we passed the order dated 21.4.2010 calling upon the Block Development Officer, Manpur, to be personally present on 28.4.2010 along with supplementary show-cause. He is personally present and has also placed on record his show-cause, wherein it is stated that the order of this Court has been complied with, and the petitioner’s representation was rejected by a reasoned order on 5.11.2007 (Annexure A). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure A) is obviously an ante- dated order and has been forwarded by letter no.755, dated 29.8.2009. In his submission, if that were not so, disposal of the representation would have been stated in the two earlier show- cause of the contemners. I must state that the learned counsel for the petitioner raises a serious issue and needs consideration. 3. This application is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition challenging the validity of the said order dated 5.11.2007, marked Annexure A. It goes without saying that it will be open to the petitioner to raise the question, namely, the order is ante-dated and has really been passed later on. ( S K Katriar ) mrl