- (1.) THE Director of Higher Education, State of Bihar, in terms of the order of this Court dated 22 - ll - 2001, was directed to conduct the election of the Managing Committee and Chairman of the Council either by himself or to nominate a person not below the rank of District Education Officer or Inspector of Colleges or an equivalent post in the State as a Special Officer for the proper conduct of election. The election process was directed to be completed by 28-2-2002. Certain other directions were also issued including the direction to the then management to furnish a detailed statement of accounts to the Director of Higher Education or his nominee after the same had been audited by a recognised Chartered Accountant. The Director was given liberty to take assistance from any party or parties as he may deem fit and proper. The elections, it is admitted, were not completed within the stipulated time fixed in the order dated 22-11-2001. It seems that the elections were held only on 23-6-2002.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against four respondents. One of the respondent is the Director (Respondent 4). Respondents 1 and 2 are Chairman and Secretary of the Council and the 3rd respondent is the Principal of the Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya. Twofold grounds have been taken for initiating contempt proceedings: (i) non - completion of the elections within the period stipulated in terms of the order dated 22-11-2001, and (ii) non - submission of statements of accounts audited by a recognised Chartered Accountant. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It deserves to be noticed that counsel for the petitioner in these contempt proceedings is not challenging either the validity of the elections or the validity of the list that had been sent to the Director in February 2002. It is, however, made clear that this order will have no effect, whatsoever, either on the aspect of the validity of the list or the election and it would be open to the petitioner and other affected parties to challenge the same before an appropriate forum which would, of course be decided in accordance with law. This would be equally applicable to applicants in IA No. 5 where prayer has been made for setting aside the election and directions for holding of fresh elections after preparation of fresh electoral roll.
(3.) REVERTING to the contempt petition, the Director has sought to explain that the order of this Court dated 22-11-2001 was placed before him on 21-12-2001; he was waiting for a certified copy of that order and that his mother who had been taken ill from the 1st week of December, 2001, died on 5-1-2002 on which account he went on leave and joined duties on 18-1-2002.;