{"id":197252,"date":"2010-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-12T04:36:05","modified_gmt":"2019-02-11T23:06:05","slug":"dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010<\/div>\n
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                     CWJC No.10032 of 2009\n              DR.DHARAM SHEELA PRASAD & ORS .\n                           Versus\n       THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR & ORS .\n                          -----------\n<\/pre>\n
09   13.09.2010                On 18.08.2009 the three petitioners filed the<\/p>\n
                  present writ application being C.W.J.C. No.10032 of 2009. Two<\/p>\n
                  of the petitioners are University Professors and the third is<\/p>\n
                  Reader.   They are in different constituent Colleges of Patna<\/p>\n
                  University. Their grievance, inter alia, was that having served<\/p>\n
                  the University for two decades or more, they are now being<\/p>\n
                  noticed as to why their initial appointment dates be not shifted.<\/p>\n
                  The consequence whereof would be that not only they would be<\/p>\n
                  demoted from the post of University Professors to Readers and<\/p>\n
                  Readers to Lecturers, which promotional post they were holding<\/p>\n
                  for quite some time, having been granted those promotions by<\/p>\n
                  the University in accordance with law, but they would also have<\/p>\n
                  to face substantial reduction in their emoluments and refund<\/p>\n
                  substantial amounts, even though, they were never at fault at any<\/p>\n
                  stage. Their appointments and promotions had the sanction of<\/p>\n
                  statutory committees & authorities. It may be noted here that<\/p>\n
                  apparently such notices had been issued to large number of<\/p>\n
                  Teachers not only in this University but other Universities of<\/p>\n
                  Bihar as well. In some cases demotion orders, recovery from<\/p>\n
                  salary and reduction in pay scale had already been ordered in<\/p>\n
                  respect of Teachers including those who had retired long back.<\/p>\n
                  The matter was taken up for admission on 07.09.2009 when
\n                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Mridula Mishra, J., before whom the matter was listed, as per the<\/p>\n
roaster, having noticed the controversy, passed the following<\/p>\n
orders:-\n<\/p>\n
             \"....Till             disposal         of        this\n   application,            the     University        and        its\n   authorities           are     restrained     from      taking\n   any       coercive            action       against           the\n   petitioners             and      similarly          situated\n   persons.\" (emphasis supplied)\n<\/pre>\n
             Upon change of roaster, the case was listed and<\/p>\n
taken up for admission after notice before this Court on<\/p>\n
30.07.2010. When the matter was taken up Sri Vinod Kanth and<\/p>\n
other learned Senior Counsels appearing in the case drew<\/p>\n
attention of this Court to a communication dated 18.06.2010<\/p>\n
(Annexure-10    to   the    Interlocutory   Application    by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners), issued by the Secretary, Department of Human<\/p>\n
Resources Development, Government of Bihar (Sri K.K. Pathak,<\/p>\n
as he then was), recording the proceedings of meeting dated<\/p>\n
15.06.2010 of Registrars of various Universities with the<\/p>\n
Secretary. This communication shows that in the meeting the<\/p>\n
Secretary had warned the Registrars that unless early action and<\/p>\n
recovery of amounts wrongly paid (because of allegedly wrong<\/p>\n
fixation of date of initial appointment) to the Universities<\/p>\n
employees was not recovered immediately and reported, then for<\/p>\n
the next 10 months University would not be given payment in<\/p>\n
respect salary of its employees.     It was pointed out by the<\/p>\n
learned counsels that this clearly shows that the Teachers were
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
being held at ransom wherein notwithstanding the interim orders<\/p>\n
of this Court passed more than a year back, it was being<\/p>\n
overridden under threat of withholding grants for payment of<\/p>\n
future salaries. Though this was record of the proceeding, it<\/p>\n
made no mention about the interim order of this Court as noted<\/p>\n
above. Substantial number of Teachers in all Universities of<\/p>\n
Bihar were affected. This had created turmoil in the Universities<\/p>\n
even though the matter was sub judice with interim protection.<\/p>\n
               This Court, in view of the threat held out, in direct<\/p>\n
conflict with the interim order, as aforesaid, prima facie<\/p>\n
considered it to be an act of overreaching the orders of this Court<\/p>\n
and noticing the facts in this regard suo motu initiated contempt<\/p>\n
proceedings on 30.07.2010 against Sri K.K. Pathak, Secretary,<\/p>\n
Human Resources Development Department, Government of<\/p>\n
Bihar, Patna and directed the learned Secretary to appear in<\/p>\n
person and file his show cause in the Court on 18th August, 2010<\/p>\n
at 2:00 PM.\n<\/p>\n
               Upon notice having been served to Sri K.K. Pathak<\/p>\n
with regard to his appearance and filing of show cause, on<\/p>\n
10.08.2010 I.A. No.7088 of 2010 was filed by Sri K.K. Pathak<\/p>\n
personally sworn by him before the Oath Commissioner, Patna<\/p>\n
High Court. This interlocutory application was for recall of the<\/p>\n
order dated 30th July, 2010 by which this proceedings had been<\/p>\n
initiated.   In this interlocutory application, it was, inter alia,<\/p>\n
stated that the said directions (Annexure-10) were given so that
\n                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
the financial burden of the Universities comes down. It was<\/p>\n
stated in paragraphs-13&14 that while giving such direction to<\/p>\n
the University in the said meeting the Department being fully<\/p>\n
aware of the stay order of this Court, the Registrars were clearly<\/p>\n
told that those Teachers who had obtained stay order from any<\/p>\n
Court need not be disturbed and action be taken only against<\/p>\n
such Teachers who are not covered by any stay order. These<\/p>\n
statements have been sworn by Sri Pathak based upon<\/p>\n
information derived from the records of the case but regrettably<\/p>\n
even though Annexure-10 was the record of the proceedings of<\/p>\n
the meeting it did not reflect any such exception nor any other<\/p>\n
chit of paper to substantiate this fact much less contemporaneous<\/p>\n
document upon which this information was based was annexed<\/p>\n
to this application or brought on record. It was then stated as a<\/p>\n
matter of justification for the said order that it was being based<\/p>\n
on basis of earlier orders of this Court. However, in paragraph-<\/p>\n
19 it is stated that in subsequent meeting of the Auditors and<\/p>\n
other Officers of various Universities dated 05.08.2010, it was<\/p>\n
clarified by the Director, Higher Education (not Sri K.K. Pathak)<\/p>\n
that wherever there were interim orders of Court no action<\/p>\n
should be taken. Let it be noted that this clarification only came<\/p>\n
after this Court had initiated contempt proceedings on<\/p>\n
30.07.2010.   Upon these pleadings, it was prayed that there<\/p>\n
being justification for the order and no intent to overreach the<\/p>\n
orders of this Court, this Court may recall the order dated
\n                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
30.07.2010. It may be noted that there was no apology offered<\/p>\n
rather it was stated therein that the Court should not have<\/p>\n
initiated the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
              On 16.08.2010 I.A. No.7277 of 2010 was filed,<\/p>\n
which was again personally sworn by Sri K.K. Pathak on<\/p>\n
16.08.2010 before the Advocate Oath Commissioner, Patna<\/p>\n
High Court. In this interlocutory application, it was prayed that<\/p>\n
the personal appearance of Sri Pathak be dispensed with as Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak had on 13.08.2010 filed a Letters Patent Appeal against<\/p>\n
the order dated 30.07.2010, passed by this Court, which was still<\/p>\n
pending before the stamp reporter with defects. It was prayed<\/p>\n
that further proceedings pursuant to the said orders of this Court<\/p>\n
be stayed accordingly till disposal of L.P.A.\n<\/p>\n
              On 18.08.2010, as earlier ordered, the case was<\/p>\n
listed but before brother J.N. Singh, J. as per the changed<\/p>\n
roaster. The two interlocutory applications, one for recall of the<\/p>\n
order and the other of stay of order dated 30.07.2010, were<\/p>\n
apparently pressed. J.N. Singh, J. thought it proper that the<\/p>\n
matter be dealt with by this Court and, as such, directed the<\/p>\n
matters to be placed before this Court after obtaining the<\/p>\n
permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Let it be noted that Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak did not appear in person as ordered but on request of<\/p>\n
learned counsel as the matter was taken up, for that day alone his<\/p>\n
appearance was exempted.\n<\/p>\n
              After orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the
\n                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
matter was placed before this Court on 20th August, 2010 but Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak chose not to appear. Learned Additional Advocate<\/p>\n
General-III pressed the interlocutory applications once again as<\/p>\n
would be seen from the order dated 20.08.2010.          This Court<\/p>\n
reminded the learned Additional Advocate General-III that as<\/p>\n
the order of this Court was to appear in person and file show<\/p>\n
cause Sri Pathak must first appear and then his interlocutory<\/p>\n
application for dropping the proceedings would be considered.<\/p>\n
Court also requested the learned AAG-III to inform the Court on<\/p>\n
the next day the date and time which would be suitable for Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak to appear in the Court as he was a Senior Officer and<\/p>\n
must be busy. The case was adjourned for 24th of August, 2010<\/p>\n
for the said purpose.\n<\/p>\n
              On 24th August, 2010 again Sri Pathak failed to<\/p>\n
appear nor did he authorized the learned counsel to intimate any<\/p>\n
date for his appearance rather instructed the learned AAG-III to<\/p>\n
take the stand that in view of Letters Patent Appeal having being<\/p>\n
filed the Court should not proceed further in the matter. This<\/p>\n
Court as per dated 24.08.2010 noted all the aforesaid facts and<\/p>\n
rejected the prayer on behalf of Sri Pathak clearly holding that<\/p>\n
mere preferment of appeal does not amount to stay, as an appeal<\/p>\n
filed and left unattended would take decade for being taken up<\/p>\n
thus frustrating all orders of the Court. Effectively thus, both the<\/p>\n
Interlocutory Applications stood disposed of. Again, on request<\/p>\n
of learned AAG-III this Court fixed 25th August, 2010 for
\n                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
personal appearance of Sri Pathak.\n<\/p>\n
              On 25th August, 2010 when the case was taken up<\/p>\n
again Sri Pathak refused to appear. Learned AAG-III informed<\/p>\n
the Court that he had personally informed Sri Pathak about the<\/p>\n
orders of the Court well in time but because of his defiant<\/p>\n
attitude it was difficult for him to persuade Sri Pathak to appear<\/p>\n
in this Court. This Court passed over the case in order to enable<\/p>\n
Sri Pathak to realize his position and to enable learned AAG-III<\/p>\n
to persuade him.\n<\/p>\n
              On 26.08.2010 when the case was again listed Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak inspite of being informed by the learned AAG-III chose<\/p>\n
to be absent. He instructed learned AAG-III to insist upon the<\/p>\n
Court first to dispose of his pending interlocutory applications<\/p>\n
with regard to recalling and staying the order dated 30.07.2010<\/p>\n
and unless that was done he would not consider appearing.<\/p>\n
Learned AAG-III informed the Court that even he has reminded<\/p>\n
Sri Pathak that Sri Pathak was in no position to dictate orders to<\/p>\n
this Court and he must first submit to the jurisdiction of this<\/p>\n
Court in the manner directed by this Court but Sri Pathak<\/p>\n
continues with his defiant attitude. These are all recorded in the<\/p>\n
order dated 26.08.2010 of this Court including the caution issued<\/p>\n
by this Court as to the consequences of non-appearance which<\/p>\n
was a matter independent of his initial actions. However, again<\/p>\n
at the request of learned AAG-III the matter was adjourned to 1st<\/p>\n
September, 2010 for appearance of Sri Pathak in the hope that
\n                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
being a Senior Officer he would submit to rule of law instead of<\/p>\n
trying to dictate orders to this Court as if Court was his<\/p>\n
subordinate.\n<\/p>\n
               Again, when the matter was listed before this<\/p>\n
Court on 1st September, 2010 as the order sheet would disclose<\/p>\n
the learned AAG-III reported to the Court that he and the learned<\/p>\n
Advocate General, who had called Sri Pathak to his Chambers in<\/p>\n
the High Court, tried to persuade Sri Pathak to appear before the<\/p>\n
Court, as was repeatedly directed by the Court, but he continued<\/p>\n
with his defiant attitude and refused even to exceed to the<\/p>\n
request of the learned Advocate General and, as such, did not<\/p>\n
chose to appear.        Upon this, Court requested the learned<\/p>\n
Advocate General to assist the Court in the matter. He appeared<\/p>\n
and clearly stated that Sri Pathak failed to abide by his advise.<\/p>\n
He was aware of the day to day proceedings in this Court, in<\/p>\n
such situation, both the learned Advocate General and learned<\/p>\n
Additional Advocate General-III clearly stated that they were<\/p>\n
not in a position to defend the defiant attitude of Sri K.K. Pathak<\/p>\n
and it would be open to the Court to take all coercive steps to<\/p>\n
secure his attendance to which they were in no position to<\/p>\n
object, as it is a matter of dignity, authority and majesty of the<\/p>\n
Court, which had been challenged and defied by Sri K.K.Pathak.<\/p>\n
This is reflected in the order dated 01.09.2010 of this Court.<\/p>\n
This Court reserved the matter for consideration as it thought<\/p>\n
proper not to react impulsively because the matter had reached
\n                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
to a very serious proportion.\n<\/p>\n
              For the sake of the records, I may note that on<\/p>\n
10.08.2010 State including the Secretary filed a Letters Patent<\/p>\n
Appeal being L.P.A. No.1261 of 2010 against the original<\/p>\n
interim order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Court. The said<\/p>\n
Letters Patent Appeal was taken up by Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court on the very next day i.e. 11.08.2010, wherein the Division<\/p>\n
Bench in this intra Court appeal presided by Hon’ble the Chief<\/p>\n
Justice refused to entertain the appeal observing that if there was<\/p>\n
any confusion then it was open to the University or the appellant<\/p>\n
to approach the learned Single Judge for vacating the stay or for<\/p>\n
early hearing of the writ petition as may be advised. Thus, the<\/p>\n
order of the stay continued to operate.\n<\/p>\n
              As noted earlier, Sri K.K.Pathak personally filed<\/p>\n
I.A. No.7277 of 2010 on 16.08.2010, stating that on 13.08.2010<\/p>\n
he had filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of this<\/p>\n
Court dated 30.07.2010, initiating proceedings in contempt and<\/p>\n
personal appearance, which was still pending in the Court. For<\/p>\n
the sake of records, I may note that the said L.P.A. No.1289 of<\/p>\n
2010 was listed for admission before Division Bench presided<\/p>\n
by Hon’ble the Chief Justice but no steps were taken to either<\/p>\n
mention the matter or get it heard out of turn. At the cost of<\/p>\n
repetition, the fact that such Letters Patent Appeal has been filed<\/p>\n
and the prayer for stay of the proceedings before this Court,<\/p>\n
merely upon filing of the L.P.A. had already been rejected by
\n                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
this Court by order dated 24.08.2010, holding that mere<\/p>\n
pendency of appeal does not amount to stay and it was open to<\/p>\n
the applicant to take steps for getting the appeal heard at an early<\/p>\n
date. No steps were taken, instead the Court was being directed<\/p>\n
by Sri Pathak to stay proceeding and decide his applications<\/p>\n
before he would consider obeying orders of the Court to appear<\/p>\n
personally, which stand even the learned Advocate General and<\/p>\n
learned AAG-III had told Sri Pathak could not take.              Sri<\/p>\n
K.K.Pathak chooses to act in a defiant attitude even then.<\/p>\n
              Normally and ordinarily, upon the stand taken by<\/p>\n
learned Advocate General and learned AAG-III, as recorded in<\/p>\n
the order dated 1st September, 2010, this Court should have<\/p>\n
proceeded to secure the attendance of Sri Pathak by using all<\/p>\n
coercive powers i.e. in the shape of issuing non-bailable<\/p>\n
warrants for his production before the Court but to this Court it<\/p>\n
appears that the greater the power and authority of the Court the<\/p>\n
higher is the responsibility on the Court to exercise it with care,<\/p>\n
caution and responsibility. Judicial restraint is a virtue<\/p>\n
concomitant of every judicial dispensation. But that has also its<\/p>\n
limits. The action must not be egocentric in any case. It is not a<\/p>\n
matter of vindicating the personal ego of a Judge, that is in<\/p>\n
question, but here it is a question of dignity, majesty and<\/p>\n
authority of the Court. In a democratic country, as I believe, for<\/p>\n
the survival of the society it is necessary to abide by<\/p>\n
constitutional principles and honour rule of law. If an Executive
\n                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer and, that too a very Senior Officer, supposed to be a<\/p>\n
responsible Officer, chooses in this brazen manner to defy the<\/p>\n
authority of the Court and to defy the constitutional position<\/p>\n
enjoyed by the Court by virtue of Article-215 of the Constitution<\/p>\n
and defies all advise given to him by another constitutional<\/p>\n
functionaries, the Advocate General of the State, then what is to<\/p>\n
be done?\n<\/p>\n
              Having given my anxious consideration to the<\/p>\n
facts in respect of these proceedings, I regret to say that this case<\/p>\n
reflects a very sorry state of affairs which may, if not corrected,<\/p>\n
lead to complete collapse of rule of law.\n<\/p>\n
              In my view, the above facts have to be seen as two<\/p>\n
separate incidents which would have to be dealt with separately.<\/p>\n
First, related to the directions issued by the Secretary vide<\/p>\n
Annexure-10 dated 18.06.2010, which prompted this Court to<\/p>\n
initiate the proceedings for contempt and appearance of Sri<\/p>\n
Pathak, prima facie, on the ground that the said amounts to<\/p>\n
overreaching and overriding the orders of the Court. This is an<\/p>\n
independent event. What followed thereafter being the defiant<\/p>\n
attitude of Sri Pathak in not obeying the orders to appear is an<\/p>\n
independent events itself clearly designed to undermine the<\/p>\n
authority and dignity of the Court. This was cautioned by this<\/p>\n
Court long before (order dated 26.08.2010) as a distinct matter.<\/p>\n
              Now, coming to the first event i.e. Annexure-10,<\/p>\n
being the notings of the meeting held on 15.06.2010, as recorded
\n                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
by the Secretary, Sri K.K.Pathak and communicated to the<\/p>\n
Universities by communication dated 18.06.2010 (Annexure-10<\/p>\n
to the interlocutory application of the petitioner), what this<\/p>\n
clearly discloses is an imperative threat by the Secretary to the<\/p>\n
Universities to implement the directions for correcting the<\/p>\n
service tenure and consequently the pay scales of teaching and<\/p>\n
non-teaching employee of the Universities and making<\/p>\n
recoveries immediately, failing which their salary would be<\/p>\n
stopped for next ten months. There is no other exception. If one<\/p>\n
reads this along with the interim order passed over a year back,<\/p>\n
as quoted above, which clearly restrained authorities from taking<\/p>\n
any coercive action not only against the petitioner but similarly<\/p>\n
situated   persons    then   all     Universities   under   similar<\/p>\n
circumstances are consequently restrained from taking coercive<\/p>\n
steps so long as the stay continued. The tenure of the notings as<\/p>\n
circulated and contained in Annexure-10 shows total disregard<\/p>\n
to this. In view of the nature of the interim order where was the<\/p>\n
occasion to issue such directions.\n<\/p>\n
              Even though, this Court is not bound to consider<\/p>\n
the cause shown till contempt is purged and the Officer<\/p>\n
appeared, still if we look at the interlocutory application being<\/p>\n
I.A.No.7088 of 2010, which was filed by Sri K.K.Pathak before<\/p>\n
this Court for recall of the order dated 30.07.2010, which is in<\/p>\n
the shape of a show cause, two facts he has mentioned in his<\/p>\n
defence. Firstly, he was acting bona fide to recover the money
\n                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
to reduce the financial burden of the Universities and secondly<\/p>\n
that in the said meeting he had clearly repeatedly told Officers<\/p>\n
not to take action against the Teachers who had obtained stay<\/p>\n
orders from any Court. The first is a justification for action and<\/p>\n
the second is a defence. So far as the second fact is concerned<\/p>\n
though as per the affidavit filed by Sri K.K.Pathak, this fact as<\/p>\n
stated was true to his information derive from the records of the<\/p>\n
case, no records in support thereof have been produced. Produce<\/p>\n
to the contrary are records of proceedings of that meeting as<\/p>\n
circulated under the signature of Sri Pathak himself which is<\/p>\n
Annexure-10 which even obliquely does not refer to any such<\/p>\n
thing said or done. It is an untrue fact not borne out of the<\/p>\n
records and obviously an after thought of Sri Pathak to create<\/p>\n
false defence, knowing it to be false.      The position stands<\/p>\n
clarified when in the same affidavit he annexes a subsequent<\/p>\n
communication dated 05.08.2010 under the signature of the<\/p>\n
Director, Higher Education, Department of Human Resources,<\/p>\n
which for the first time speaks about interim order and giving<\/p>\n
effect thereto. Let it be noted that on 30.07.2010 contempt<\/p>\n
proceedings had already been initiated.\n<\/p>\n
              Upon these facts, I have no manner of doubt that<\/p>\n
Sri Pathak did mean to ignore the order of this Court and defy<\/p>\n
the same till better sense prevailed upon him though even then<\/p>\n
he did not have the dignity to himself writes to the Universities<\/p>\n
to ignore his earlier orders in view of the interim orders this
\n                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. He is clearly, thus, guilty of contempt. His show cause,<\/p>\n
even without his personal appearance is, thus, rejected, but while<\/p>\n
considering how to deal with him this Court would keep in mind<\/p>\n
that he has apart from creating a false defence, tried to purge the<\/p>\n
contempt as well.\n<\/p>\n
              Now, we come to the second aspect or the second<\/p>\n
event, which is solely because of Sri Pathak his own creation in<\/p>\n
course of the Court proceedings. It is the matter of his defiant<\/p>\n
attitude not to appear in person before the Court in spite of half a<\/p>\n
dozen direct orders in this regard and inspite of repeated advise<\/p>\n
to the same effect given by the learned Advocate General and<\/p>\n
learned Additional Advocate General-III.\n<\/p>\n
              From the facts noted above, it would be seen that<\/p>\n
the plea of Sri K.K.Pathak to recall the order, was not<\/p>\n
entertained by this Court. Sri Pathak’s plea to stay operation of<\/p>\n
the order pending appeal was clearly rejected by this Court.<\/p>\n
Letters Patent Appeal challenging the first interim order, for<\/p>\n
violation whereof, the proceedings were initiated, was dismissed<\/p>\n
by the Division Bench. Sri Pathak was told that he could not<\/p>\n
dictate orders or sets terms for his appearance before the Court,<\/p>\n
still he defied the authority of the Court. He took no steps for<\/p>\n
expeditious hearing of his Letters Patent Appeal challenging the<\/p>\n
order initiating the proceedings.     He consistently defied the<\/p>\n
orders of this Court to appear even when Court gave him an<\/p>\n
option to fix date and time as per his own convenience, he
\n                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
refused. His conduct clearly showed that he took it to below his<\/p>\n
dignity or too demeaning to personally appear before the Court,<\/p>\n
which fact stands substantiated by his conduct.        He had no<\/p>\n
problems of visiting the Chambers of the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General in the High Court.        He had even no problem in<\/p>\n
appearing twice before the Oath Commissioner in the High<\/p>\n
Court for swearing the affidavits in support of the interlocutory<\/p>\n
application but he had serious problems and reservation about<\/p>\n
obeying orders of this Court to appear before the Court. He<\/p>\n
continued to dictate to the Court as to how the Court should<\/p>\n
conduct the proceedings, which was deprecated by the learned<\/p>\n
Advocate General and learned Additional Advocate General-III<\/p>\n
and he was told so. Still he continued with his defiant attitude.<\/p>\n
              In my view, if these facts show anything they lead<\/p>\n
to only one irresistible conclusion that this Officer for some<\/p>\n
unknown and undisclosed reasons refuses to submit himself to<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of the Court. He did not even heed to the advise<\/p>\n
to the learned Advocate General who apart from being<\/p>\n
constitutional functionary is the highest Law Officer of the State<\/p>\n
of which he is one of the Officers. This can only be termed as a<\/p>\n
well informed decision to undermine the authority of the Court<\/p>\n
and deliberately obstructing the proceedings of the Court. By<\/p>\n
this process he has not only undermined the authority and<\/p>\n
dignity of the Court but frivolously wasted valuable time of this<\/p>\n
Court on a matter of self prestige.    We must remind ourselves
\n                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
that no one is above law and this misgiving must be dispelled.<\/p>\n
             In such a situation, this Court passes the following<\/p>\n
orders:-\n<\/p>\n
             (1) It will be open for the State Government<\/p>\n
               consider as to how it would deal with such<\/p>\n
               Officer under it in the facts of this case.<\/p>\n
             (2) For uselessly wasting time of this Court and<\/p>\n
               creating a false defence as to the first event, Sri<\/p>\n
               K.K. Pathak is imposed with a personal fine of<\/p>\n
               Rs.25,000\/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to be<\/p>\n
               deposited by him within one week with the Bihar<\/p>\n
               State Legal Aid Committee and receipt thereof<\/p>\n
               deposited in these proceedings within the said<\/p>\n
               time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (3) Let a proceeding in the shape of criminal<\/p>\n
               contempt proceedings be initiated against Sri<\/p>\n
               K.K. Pathak, I.A.S. for undermining the dignity<\/p>\n
               and authority of this Court by his defiant attitude<\/p>\n
               and deliberately obstructing course of justice in<\/p>\n
               relation to the second event aforesaid.        The<\/p>\n
               criminal contempt proceedings would be initiated<\/p>\n
               in a separate independent file starting with copies<\/p>\n
               of the orders of this Court. As per the provisions<\/p>\n
               of Rule-7 (i) of the Contempt of Courts (Patna<\/p>\n
               High Court) Rules 1985 let a notice be issued to
\n                17<\/span><\/p>\n
           him in this regard in Form-1 with direction in<\/p>\n
           terms of Rule 7(iii) to appear in person before the<\/p>\n
           appropriate Bench of this Court on 27th<\/p>\n
           September, 2010.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (4) That as the matter in relation to the<\/p>\n
           proceedings as against Sri K.K. Pathak has thus<\/p>\n
           been concluded by this Court in the manner<\/p>\n
           aforesaid, let this case now be listed before the<\/p>\n
           regular Bench for dealing with the merit of the<\/p>\n
           writ application after obtaining orders of the<\/p>\n
           Hon’ble Chief Justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Trivedi\/            (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10032 of 2009 DR.DHARAM SHEELA PRASAD & ORS . Versus THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR & ORS . ———– 09 13.09.2010 On 18.08.2009 the three […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4034,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010"},"wordCount":4034,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010","name":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-11T23:06:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-dharam-sheela-prasad-amp-ors-vs-the-chancellor-of-university-o-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Dharam Sheela Prasad &Amp; Ors vs The Chancellor Of University O on 13 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}