ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. The Director of Higher Education, State of Bihar, in terms of the order of this Court dated 22-11-2001, 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. 3. 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. 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. 4. 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. 5. He has further stated in the affidavit that from the 1st week of March, 2001 his daughter was suffering from congenital heart disease, she became serious and died on 13-6-2002. The Director had appointed a Special Officer to conduct the elections as was permissible under the order passed by this Court but that was done only on 11-3-2002. An application for extension of time to hold the election was also filed but that too, much after the expiry of the time. The said application was filed on 18-4-2002. 6. It is evident that the Director was utterly negligent. He knew about the time-frame fixed by this Court. He had also been given the liberty to appoint a nominee for the conduct of election, which nominee was appointed after the expiry of the stipulated period and the same is the position about filing an application seeking extension. Despite this attitude we are of the view, it is possible, as submitted that the Director on account of personal difficulties, as noticed above, may not be in a proper state of mind and thus we refrain from initiating contempt proceedings against him on account of non-holding of the election within the stipulated period. We may also notice that if Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were not cooperative, the Director was not without remedy but for the same reason as above noticed, we do not think it to be a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings. We may also notice that if Respondents 1, 2 and 3 were not cooperative, the Director was not without remedy but for the same reason as above noticed, we do not think it to be a fit case for initiating contempt proceedings. 7. With regard to non-filing of the accounts duly audited by a recognised Chartered Accountant, Respondents 1, 2 and 3 have sought to explain that they had appointed on 7-12-2001, a Chartered Accountant to audit accounts of the college. The Chartered Accountant had intimated them by a letter dated 24-12-2001 that the university audit was going on and the account books and other records were with the university and, therefore, no auditing could be done till the account books and relevant documents are returned by the university to the auditing team. The statement of accounts audited by the university was received by the management on 14-6-2002 and the same was sent to the Director on 19-6-2002 and thereafter the statement of accounts dated 21-6-2002 audited by the Chartered Accountant was received by the management on 25-6-2002 and was sent to the authority concerned on 3-7-2002. On these facts we do not think it appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the management in not sending the detailed statement of accounts duly audited by the Chartered Accountant to the Director before the time up to which the elections were directed to be completed. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the contempt petition, but at the same time make it clear that the observations made hereinbefore would not have any effect on the rights and contentions of the parties in any proceedings that may be initiated challenging the election or the list that had been prepared by the respondents. 9. IAs are disposed of in the above terms. Contempt petition dismissed.