JUDGMENT This contempt petition has been filed by Dr. Shiv Jatan Thakur against the Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and others for alleged wilful violation of the order of this Court dated 16th January, 1992. The order, violation of which is complained of is Annexure-I to the contempt petition which will speak for itself. The writ petition was moved praying for an appropriate writ/order in the nature of quo warranto for "ousting Respondent no. 6 (who is the present applicant) from the office of the Member of Bihar Public Service Commission" (hereinafter referred to as the "commission") on the allegation that he has illegally usurped the same and that he is not entitled to continue. Dr. Thakur, the applicant, who was Respondent no. 6 in the writ petition had appeared in person and we recorded in our order to the following extent: "Dr. Thakur (respondent no. 6) the aggrieved person, has appeared in person and we may commend that, even being a totally blind person, who was put in a position to defend himself because the lawyer appointed by the commission was not allowed by the Commission In his behalf, he has behaved in a very dignified manner with full respect towards this court while making his submissions. He has stated that while it is true that he has become blind since the age of eight years and though that created a great hardship on him he has always tried to overcome this difficulty since his childhood and has been able to do so in many ways. In spite of this disadvantage he has been able to pursue his educational career successfully and has earned degrees and diplomas. He has submitted that his blindness though might create some difficulty, for that reason only he cannot be and should not be treated as a physically or mentally infirm person. In this connection, however, he has complained that though in spite of his blindness the state Government had thought it fit and proper to appoint him as a Member of the Commission in March, 1991, and though initially he was provided with all the facilities and amenities as a Member of the Commission, however, since 1st October, 1991, at the instance and behest of the Chairman he is being harassed by way of depriving him of several facilities particulars of Some of which are given below: 1. His P. A. has been replaced. 2. His chamber, which contains two almirah consisting document has been locked up. 3. The service of the reader, who is to read to him document and journals and other papers, is not being provided to him and his services have been terminated. 4. Use of staff car by him has been stopped. 5. His orderly has been transferred. 6. The Chairman of the Commission has issued instruction not to receive any document from him or to obey his orders. 7. The telephone bill for the month of October, 1991 for Rs. 598/- only has not been paid though a sum of Rs. 18,154/- on account of telephone bill of the Chairman's residence: has been paid. 8. The newspaper allowance payable to him is not being paid. 9. He has not been allowed to attend the meetings of the Commission held on 11th December, 20th December, and 31st December, 1991, and he is not aware when any other meeting has been held thereafter or not inasmuch as he has not been provided with any notice in respect of the same. 10. He has been physically prevented from going to inside the campus of the Commission since 28th of November, 1991. (para 6). After going into the merits of the contention and after consideration of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India we came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the application and we passed an order to that effect; we held that respondent no. 6 (Dr. Thakur) continues and shall continue to be a Member of Bihar Public Service Commission until and unless he is removed by the appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India, We also stated as follows: "So far as the specific allegation made by respondent no. 6, who is appearing in person that the Commission and its Chairman is not providing all facilities and amenities to him as a Member of the Commission, as stated hereinabove, as there is nothing on oath by him in this 'regard and that no opportunity has yet been given to the commission or its chairman to deal with the same on oath, we are not inclined to give any specific direction to that effect in this proceeding and at this stage. However, we make it clear that as he continues to be a Member of the Commission, as long as he is not removed from the post of the Member of the Commission in accordance with law he is entitled to and he shall be given by the Commission, its Chairman and Officers/employees, all facilities and amenities as enjoyed by any other member of the Commission. In respect of those matters where there is no difference between the Chairman and an ordinary member in this regard, he shall also be entitled to enjoy all facilities enjoyed by the Chairman. The Commission or the Chairman or anyone on behalf of the Commission shall not treat him differently in any manner whatsoever as long as he such member and he is not in accordance with law."(Para 15) Now, this application has been made on the ground that the contemnor-opposite party have not complied with our direction as given in paragraph 15 of our order as quoted above. we were concerned with the prayer made in the writ petition and not regarding the legal right of the petitioner herein who was Respondent no. 6 in the writ petition. We are to point out that the scope of the writ petition was different and that we decided only the question of propriety, appointment and continuance of Dr. Thakur as a member of the Commission. In that writ petition we could not have given any relief to him who was the writ petitioner. That is why we made it quite clear that under the circumstances. we were not inclined to give any specific direction in the said proceeding at that stage. However, we made his position clear by stating certain facts in the later part of paragraph 15 of our order. However, that was our sincere wish so that the matter would come to an end. It seemed that there was and is a fight between the chairman and Dr. Thakur if the allegations are taken to be correct. We did not go into the same as we were not entitled to do so in the said petition. we did not give any direction as we could not, having regard to the legal right of the petitioner. It was our desire and wish that Dr. Thakur being a blind person, be treated fairly. We did not go into the same as we were not entitled to do so in the said petition. we did not give any direction as we could not, having regard to the legal right of the petitioner. It was our desire and wish that Dr. Thakur being a blind person, be treated fairly. That was merely our desire and not our specific direction as we have made it clear – We make it clear that there is another application by the Bihar public service Commission for modification of the order and another substantive writ petition filed by Dr. Thakur for certain relief. we make it clear that the order in this proceeding shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in other proceedings. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this application for contempt, with the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Application disposed of.