Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal no. 2 of 1999 has been filed by Jitendra Sharma against the State of Bihar. 2. In effect, Jitendra Sharma desires that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and other respondents be put on a notice for contempt for not having paid his dues in service and post retirement dues. 3. The aspect of taking an action under contempt, i.e. civil contempt, will come much later. At the outset, the Court enquired from learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as to where may be the case in which an order may have been passed in a cause which was brought to the High Court on which a contempt action may have necessitated notice to the respondents. It is acknowledged that Jitendra Sharma has filed no case at the High Court. He relies on the generality of the orders which have been passed in similar cases. A question arises, would it be appropriate for this Court on a Letters Patent Appeal to question the respondents for a contemptuous action when no order has been passed in a cause brought personally by Jitendra Sharma? Even otherwise the appellant seems to have gained much mileage for having brought this misconceived appeal. Further, the Court cannot help noticing that learned counsel for the appellant is no other than the son of the appellant; this situation ought to be avoided. It is not appropriate in some professions to handle causes and cases of kinsmen. Lawyers should not do cases of their sons, daughters and parents and surgeons normally do not operate on their children and parents. 4. With this, counsel chose to withdraw this Letters Patent Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.