MOTI RANEE DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also the State counsel.

(2.) IT is peculiar to note that even after the order was passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 822 of 2002 [reported in 2002(3) PUR 312] and when the matter was agitated before the L.P.A. court and then the L.P.A. had been withdrawn but still then the authorities of the police department are trying to evade the order of this Court wilfully stating that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service and not discharged. But factual aspects had been considered and then order passed by this Court in writ petition has been confirmed. Now there remains no scope for defying the courts order either by the Superintendent of Police or by any other authorities of the police department. But from Annexure -C filed today in the supplementary affidavit, it clearly shows that respondent no.5 has committed the contempt of court and there remains no other alternative but to proceed against him by framing charges for contempt of court and give punishment thereto.

(3.) IN that way, let opposite party no.5. The Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, appear before this Court on 1st April, 2003 for proceeding against him for contempt of court and framing charges thereof. But this appearance would not debar opposite party no.5 and opposite party no.4 to correct themselves in the meantime.