IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.2347 of 2010
Upendra Chaudhary son of late Ganesh Chaudhary resident of village
Ltahari, P.O. Fudkichak, Police Station Gogri, District Khagaria ....Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Bihar
2. Sri Santosh Maithyou S/o not known, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh S/o not known, the District Magistrate, Munger
4. Sri Bindeshwari Pd. Singh son of not known, the Executive Engineer, Rural
Development Department, Special Division (Pra-Aa) Munger
5. Sri Surendra Jha son of not known, the Superintendent of Engineer, Rural
Development Department, Special Division (Pra-Aa) Munger
....Opposite Parties
-----------
3 15-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
Pursuant to order of Division Bench in LPA
no. 297/2010 dated 15-2-2010, the petitioner made a
prayer through annexure-2 dated 27-2-2010 requesting
the various authorities to pay him balance amount of a
particular project along with interest. That representation
in annexure-2 mentions the place of posting of the
petitioner as Junior Engineer on deputation in block
Haveli Kharagpur (in anticipation of orders). The
direction of the Division Bench was that the petitioner
should prefer an explanation by giving the details to the
competent authority within six weeks and thereafter the
2
said authority, which is Executive Engineer in this case,
was to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and then to determine whether the work in question had
been undertaken, the amount had been spent and whether
the amount has fallen due for being realized from the
petitioner. Such exercise was to be completed within 8
weeks.
According to the petitioner the prayer made in
annexure-2 was sufficient explanation and thereafter the
concerned authority was free to decide the matter but
before that petitioner should have been afforded an
opportunity of hearing.
In the show cause filed on behalf of Executive
Engineer, Opposite Party no.4, a stand has been taken
that inspite of letter written to the petitioner at his
permanent address because of non availability of his
present address, and inspite of notice published in two
prominent Hindi newspapers published from Patna, that
is, Prabhat Khabar and Aaj, the petitioner did not
submit any explanation nor he appear before Opposite
Party no.4 and in such circumstances Opposite Party
3
no.4 has passed the final order ex parte on the basis of
available materials. That order annexed as annexure-E to
the show cause bears letter no.966 dated 14-8-2010.
Although there is no specific denial that
annexure-2 was not filed by the petitioner but on perusal
of the same, we do not find any explanation with regard
to the issues noted in the order of the Division Bench for
final determination. Although the petitioner has claimed
to have visited the office of Opposite Party no.4 on
several occasions but he has never sought any
appointment from Opposite Party no.4 and never claimed
for any right of hearing. In fact there appears substance
in the stand of Opposite Party. no.4 that no explanation
was submitted in terms of the Division Bench order and
apparently petitioner avoided to appear in person inspite
of notice published in the newspapers.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
order passed by Opposite Party no.4, as contained in
annexure-E, amounts to sufficient compliance with the
order of the Division Bench. The contempt application is
dismissed.
4
It goes without saying that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the determination or decision contained in
annexure-E, he would be at liberty to pursue his remedy
through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
BKS/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)