ORDER : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. 1. This appeal is filed assailing the order of a learned single Judge on 8.2.2019 and a mention was made by the learned counsel for the appellant on Friday last i.e. 19th of April, 2019requesting the Court to take up the matter urgently in view of the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge calling upon an appropriate action to be taken against the appellant in the circumstances which have been indicated in the order itself. 2. A prelude to this matter being taken up today is that the appellant, in order to protect his interest, filed this appeal seeking leave as he was not a party-respondent before the learned Single Judge. To this effect, the direction given on the petition of urgent posting and noted by the court master on our directions is extracted herein-below: “Mentioning is accepted subject to condition that the appellant will appear in person when the matter is taken up. Put up these matters on Monday (22.04.2019). Court Officer of this Court along with two Constables are directed to be present in Court on that date.” 3. We had also orally instructed the learned Standing Counsel for making available an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police to be present on the date of the hearing. 4. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 8th February, 2019 which is extracted herein-under: “I am stupefied to notice the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary of Bihar, in the light of this Court’s observations made in the order, dated 30.01.2019, passed in the present case, which speaks for itself. From the counter affidavit, it transpires that Dr. K. P. Ramaiah, a member of the Bihar Land Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal’) is facing a criminal prosecution pursuant to registration of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 081 of 2017, on 23.10.2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is an intimation, dated 26.12.2017, made by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, addressed to the Chairman of the Tribunal in respect of the registration of the said First Information Report. There is an intimation, dated 26.12.2017, made by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, addressed to the Chairman of the Tribunal in respect of the registration of the said First Information Report. On the same date, the Tribunal has come out with an Office Order that in the light of his involvement in the criminal case, no matter should be placed before him for consideration as Member of the Tribunal, till further orders. It is manifest from the said Office Order that it had approval of the Chairman of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the lis, in the present case, is confined to challenge to an order, dated 24.02.2015, passed by Dr. K.P. Ramaiah (Member Administrative of the Tribunal), in B.L.T. Case No. 389 of 2013 and noticing glaring irregularities in passing of the order, the Court had wanted to know from the State of Bihar whether he is in habit of passing such orders and whether there are other materials to suggest that he suffers from ‘incapacity’ to hold the high position as Member Administrative of the Tribunal, within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). I had noticed that the impugned order, dated 24.02.2015, runs into 15 pages, having altogether 24 paragraphs. In 23 paragraphs, he has just referred to the submission of the parties and in the last 24th paragraph, he allowed the appeal in one sentence as under:- “24. After having heard the counsel for the parties and on going through the documents produced on the records and on perusing the order impugned, I find reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly the order dated 02.02.2002, passed by the Collector, Madhubani in Bataidari Appeal no. 33 of 1999-2000 is hereby quashed and this application is allowed.” This is the background in which I had made certain observations pursuant to which the present counter affidavit on behalf of the Chief Secretary of Bihar has been filed. In view of the nature of startling disclosure made in the counter affidavit, I feel it apt to re-produce relevant portion of the same, verbatim:- “8. That Dr. K.P. Ramaiah, Member Administrative, joined on the said post i.e. Member (Administration) on 10.07.2014 against Notification No. 519(1) dated 10.07.2014 issued by Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. In view of the nature of startling disclosure made in the counter affidavit, I feel it apt to re-produce relevant portion of the same, verbatim:- “8. That Dr. K.P. Ramaiah, Member Administrative, joined on the said post i.e. Member (Administration) on 10.07.2014 against Notification No. 519(1) dated 10.07.2014 issued by Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. His notification for the said post stands about a period of 4 years and 7 months, while the tenure for holding the said post has been fixed as 5 years or 70 years of age, whichever is earlier. 9. That in this context, information has been provided vide Letter No. 98 dated 05.02.2019 of Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, whereby and where under it was informed that Dr. K.P. Ramaiah joined Bihar Land Tribunal on 10.07.2014. As per the report from BLT, Dr. K.P. Ramaiah is not functioning on the said post since 31.10.2017. 10. That initially, Dr. K.P. Ramaiah submitted an application seeking Earned Leave from 15.11.2017 to 15.12.2017. Thereafter, from time to time, different applications were submitted seeking earned leaves from 16.12.2017 to 31.12.2017, 01.01.2018 to 15.01.2018, 16.01.2018 to 31.01.2018, 01.02.2018 to 12.02.2018, 13.02.2018 to 19.03.2018, 20.03.2018 to 10.07.2018. 11. That as such, he was functional on the said post for a period of about 3 years and 4 months only. It is to be noted that from the date of his joining on the said post, about 4 years and 7 months has already elapsed. 12. That vide letter dated 26.12.2017 bearing number 3799, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, informed the Chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal that a FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 081/2017 dated 23.10.2017 has been instituted against Dr. K.P. Ramaiah under Sections 406/409/420/468/471/477(A)/120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. That an order was passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal vide order dated 26.12.2017 whereby and where under a decision was taken in light of the letter dated 26.12.2017 received by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, in furtherance of which it was decided that no case would be placed before Dr. K.P. Ramaiah for hearing and disposal, with immediate effect.” After having made the statement as noted above, it has been averred that necessary steps are being taken to determine whether a case of removal of Dr. K.P. Ramaiah for hearing and disposal, with immediate effect.” After having made the statement as noted above, it has been averred that necessary steps are being taken to determine whether a case of removal of Dr. K. P. Ramaiah, as Member Administrative of the Tribunal, may be instituted and that the matter has, now, been brought to the notice of the concerned officials of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. Leave of this Court has been sought to submit further supplementary affidavit, as and when required by this Court or as per the need of the situation. Following five points conveniently emerge from what has been averred in the counter affidavit:- (i) Dr. K. P. Ramaiah is an accused in a criminal case registered, on 23.10.2017, by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, on the allegation of Commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has, however, not been arrested. (ii) He has successfully evaded his arrest till date. (iii) From the date of registration of the First Information Report, he is not functioning as Member Administrative of the Tribunal. (iv) His continuous absence from his duties as Member Administrative of the Tribunal is within the knowledge of all concerned. (v) Despite definite knowledge about Dr. K. P. Ramaiah’s conduct, the functionaries of the State of Bihar have not initiated any action except that the Tribunal has issued an Office Order, dated 26.12.2017, as noticed above, that no matter shall be placed before him for adjudication. The First Information Report was registered on 23.10.2017 and ever since then, he has been continuously making application from time to time for grant of earned leave. It can be easily culled out from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that he has been filing is earned leave applications continuously right from the very beginning for leave, up to 10.07.2018. It is rather painful to notice these facts stated in the counter affidavit. It can be easily culled out from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that he has been filing is earned leave applications continuously right from the very beginning for leave, up to 10.07.2018. It is rather painful to notice these facts stated in the counter affidavit. The Act was enacted for the sole purpose of establishing the Tribunal by the State Legislature exercising jurisdiction conferred under Article 323-B of the Constitution, noticing that dispute related to land pending before different fora in the State of Bihar are huge in number and the present machinery, including Civil Court, is over burdened because of pendency of huge number of disputes relating to land. The Preamble of the Act notices the complexities which the State Government has to face arising out of multiplicities of adjudicating authorities and delay in settlement of disputes. The Preamble further notices the hardship, which the people of the State had to face in the absence of any adjudicatory body. With this avowed object and purpose, the act was enacted and the Tribunal has been established. There is apparent gap between the objectives of the Act as declared in the Preamble of the Act and the seriousness which has been shown by the authorities towards functioning of the Tribunal by ignoring, which is glaring. I am mindful of the fact that this High Court has power of superintendence not only over all courts throughout the territory of Bihar, such power of superintendence is over the Tribunals also, within the territory of the State. I will be passing appropriate orders in this connection if I am constrained to do so in the present proceeding, in this regard. Coming to the merit of the case, as I have already noticed, the impugned order, dated 27.02.2015, is apparently non-speaking and unsustainable. This view is, however, tentative subject to final adjudication. Let notices be issued to respondent nos. 4 to 20 to show cause as to why this application be not heard and preferably be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which, requisites etc., under both processes, i.e., ordinary as well as speed post with A/D, must be filed by 21st February, 2019, failing which this application, as against the concerned respondents, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Dr. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Dr. K. P. Ramaiah, through the Secretary, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna, as respondent no. 21, in course of the day. Issue notice to the newly added respondent no. 21 to show cause as to why this application be not heard and preferably be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which, requisites etc., under both processes, i.e., ordinary as well as speed post with A/D, must be filed by 21st February, 2019, failing which this application, as against the concerned respondent, shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. List this case, under the same heading, on 28th March, 2019. The Court will expect affidavits to be filed by the Chief Secretary of Bihar stating developments, if any. The A.D.G., Vigilance Investigation Bureau, will also be required to file his affidavit about the stage of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 081 of 2017, and whether Dr. K. P. Ramaiah could be contacted by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. Is a Member of a Tribunal constituted by an Act of Legislature enacted under the power conferred under Article 323-B of the Constitution is a fugitive? This question, I will consider on the next date. Before I part with, I express my displeasure over the fact that whereas, by order, dated 31.01.2019, considering the sensitivity of the issue, I had directed the Chief Secretary of Bihar to file affidavit, the affidavit, which has been filed, has been sworn by the Assistant Director, Land Acquisition Revenue Department, instead. I hereby issue a note of caution that this should not recur in future.” Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is exceeding in authority inasmuch as, instead of the merits of the case, action has been directed to be taken against the appellant with certain directions to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. At first flush, this Court was also a bit concerned about the nature of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, but on further examination of facts, it is found that the appellant is involved in P.S. Case No. 81 of 17, Thana-Vigilance, District-Patna. The background of his involvement and the F.I.R. which was lodged, has been indicated in the order dated 23.3.2018 passed dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Section 438 Cr. P.C. before this Court, being Cr. Misc. The background of his involvement and the F.I.R. which was lodged, has been indicated in the order dated 23.3.2018 passed dismissing an application filed by the appellant under Section 438 Cr. P.C. before this Court, being Cr. Misc. Case No. 4117 of 2018. The order passed therein is extracted herein-under:- “Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Samrendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Law Officer, Vigilance Investigation Bureau. The petitioner, who was an I.A.S officer and took voluntary retirement on 28-02-2014 while he was posted as Chief Executive Officer of Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission, a Govt. of Bihar Wing established for upliftment of mahadalits, has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with a prayer to grant bail in the event of his arrest or surrender. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and examined the materials available on record. During argument, this fact has come that despite the fact that petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused in the F.I.R., the investigating agency has not taken any effort to apprehend him, rather it was submitted at bar that even after lodging F.I.R., the petitioner had appeared before the investigating agency and he was examined on 31-01-2018 and he was allowed to return back. Prima facie, in such situation, since there was no apparent apprehension of arrest, there was no reason to entertain the anticipatory bail application, still the present anticipatory bail petition was entertained and on 02-02-2018, while summoning legible carbon/photocopy of the case diary, a direction was issued by a coordinate Bench not to take any coercive step against the petitioner. The Court is of the opinion that since there was no apprehension, there was no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at bar that even prior to interim order, the petitioner had participated during investigation and whenever, he was summoned, he had appeared. Accordingly, I am of the view that in such situation, the present petition was required to be rejected outrightly, since no apparent apprehension was available for being arrested. However, I have heard both the parties at length on merit of the case. Accordingly, I am of the view that in such situation, the present petition was required to be rejected outrightly, since no apparent apprehension was available for being arrested. However, I have heard both the parties at length on merit of the case. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing entire F.I.R. i.e. Annexure – 1 to the petition, submits that the petitioner remained as Chief Executive Officer of Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission only for a short period i.e. from 03-02-2014 to 28-02-2014, however; he subsequently submitted that there was typing error. This fact was also pointed out by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Vigilance that the petitioner remained in such capacity from 21-01-2014 to 28-02-2014. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the case, virtually, a so called selection for imparting training and certification was initiated long back in the year 2011, obviously, the petitioner was not having any connection with such transaction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, within such short period of his posting, there was no occasion for the petitioner to examine as to whether any illegality or irregularity was committed by the earlier officers or not. Accordingly, it has been prayed for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Law Officer for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, on the basis of record, which he has received from the investigating agency, submits that it is a peculiar case that despite the fact that petitioner remained as Chief Executive Officer in the Mission only for a short period i.e. from 21-01-2014 to 28-02-2014, even after knowing the fact that his application for voluntary retirement was accepted and his voluntary retirement was finally notified on 28-02-2014, on 26-02-2014, he signed two cheques of heavy amount, which were issued in favour of two accused persons of this case namely M/s Sri Ram New Horizon and M/s I.I.I.M. Limited. He further submits that record suggests that the said file, for which cheques for huge amount were signed, had processed at about 16 to 17 levels on the same date and hurriedly, cheques were signed by the petitioner. He further submits that record suggests that the said file, for which cheques for huge amount were signed, had processed at about 16 to 17 levels on the same date and hurriedly, cheques were signed by the petitioner. According to Sri Arvind Kumar, only this act of the petitioner categorically indicates that he was a part of a continuous conspiracy and unauthorisedly, such huge amount was paid to other two accused persons of the present F.I.R. It has been argued that under the Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission, there were two schemes i.e. “Dashrath Manjhi Kaushal Vikash Yojna” and other “Special Central Assistance Scheme” which were purposely meant for imparting appropriate training to youths of Mahadalits. He submits that during preliminary inquiry, it was noticed that fictitiously certain huge amount was siphoned. Even same candidates on particular date were shown in different training programmes on one date. This fact is itself highlighted in the F.I.R. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused material available on record. On going through the F.I.R. itself, the Court is of the view that number of accused persons holding high posts have committed serious offences, which had virtually deprived mahadalits, for whose upliftment the scheme was introduced and Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission was created by the government. In the case, several crores of government fund was siphoned off by the accused persons conniving with each other. Certainly, once the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement and his voluntary retirement was accepted on 28-02-2014, his signing of two cheques for an amount of Rs. 24,93,899/-(Rupees twenty four lacs ninety three thousand eight hundred and ninety nine) in favour of one of the co-accused M/s Sri Ram New Horizon and another cheque for an amount of Rs. 2,24,76,787/-(Rupees two crores twenty four lacs seventy six thousand seven hundred and eighty seven) in favour of one another accused i.e. M/s I.I.I.M. Limited, indicates that this petitioner was also in connivance with other accused persons. Ofcourse, at this juncture, I am not recording any specific observation and this observation may not be treated otherwise at any stage, but this observation has been made only for the purposes of deciding the present anticipatory bail petition. In view of serious nature of accusation as well as the fact that petitioner was holding a high post, no lenient approach can be taken. In view of serious nature of accusation as well as the fact that petitioner was holding a high post, no lenient approach can be taken. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out by learned Law Officer for the Vigilance Investigation Bureau that this petitioner had taken voluntary retirement for participating in a parliamentary election and just two dates prior to it he had signed two cheques for such a huge amount in favour of co-accused persons, this conduct also goes against the petitioner. 6. The petition stands dismissed.” 6. As noted, we had also called upon the Administration to assist this Court and an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Mr. Ganesh Kumar, is present in Court. We had also requested the learned Advocate General to be present in this matter and it is in this background that we had called the appellant to be also present in Court. 7. We find the affidavit filed in support of this appeal to have been drawn up and signed by the appellant on 27th March, 2019. The Vakalatnama in favour of Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, advocate, is also stated to have been executed on the same day and the affidavit in support of the appeal has been identified by the Oath Commissioner, stationed at Patna High Court and the appellant has also been duly identified. It therefore appears that the appellant must have been present in the High Court on 27th March, 2019. The appellant evidently is fully aware of the proceedings, but in spite of our clear direction to the appellant to be present in Court in person today, learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar submits that her colleague had contacted the appellant on telephone but he was unaware about his whereabouts. The telephone mobile number of the learned counsel Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, is ‘9771807826’ and the telephone number of the appellant disclosed is ‘9304466963’ with whom the learned counsel might have contacted to make him aware of the Court proceedings, but on repeated queries, neither of the counsel were able to disclose the whereabouts of the appellant. 8. The telephone mobile number of the learned counsel Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, is ‘9771807826’ and the telephone number of the appellant disclosed is ‘9304466963’ with whom the learned counsel might have contacted to make him aware of the Court proceedings, but on repeated queries, neither of the counsel were able to disclose the whereabouts of the appellant. 8. In the absence of any such disclosure, it is evident that the appellant’s presence is being avoided and the appellant himself has not come up before this Court in spite of this communication to his counsel. It is, therefore, the absconding conduct of the appellant in avoiding his presence in the Court in spite of clear directions that raises a serious doubt about his bona fides and the presentation of the appeal on his behalf. This also raises a serious doubt about the appellant’s swearing of the affidavit in support of the appeal and the execution of the ‘Vakalatnama’ in the background above and his presence in this regard. We have failed to get any assistance on this count and, therefore, we are compelled now to call upon the Administration to take appropriate steps for the production of the appellant in order to enable this Court to proceed further as what we find is that if the appellant is wanted in a case registered against him which involves a huge embezzlement scam as stated in the order dated 23rd March, 2018, extracted hereinabove, we find it imperative in order to uphold the rule of law and the majesty of this Court that no obstruction is caused in the administration of justice by this Court. Once the court had directed the appellant to be present in person, it was imperative on the appellant to have been present here. 9. We are constrained to make these observations inasmuch as the appellant, in spite of such directions having been issued and in view of the facts disclosed hereinabove, the appellant has failed to appear even after the lunch recess as we had posted this matter for being taken up at the request of the learned counsel as they wanted to communicate with the appellant. 10. 10. The aforesaid attitude of the appellant clearly amounts to defiance of the orders of this Court which is not only deliberate, but is an act that may result in lowering the esteem and majesty of this Court in ensuring the production of a person who is involved in a criminal case and who has filed this appeal seeking protection of his liberty. The appellant could have appeared and filed his affidavit or defense, but his defiance not to do so is clearly an obstruction to the course of justice. This act clearly tends to lower the authority of this Court and prejudices the due course of these judicial proceedings. His involvement in the criminal case since 2017 and his conduct as noted in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as also in the order dated 23rd March, 2018 extracted hereinabove, leaves no room for doubt that the appellant’s conduct calls for an explanation from him as to why proceedings for criminal contempt be not drawn against him. We, therefore, draw suo motu proceedings on a prima facie satisfaction that the appellant has attempted to obstruct the course of justice in the manner aforesaid with a view to obstinately violate the orders of this Court. Since the appellant has failed to turn up, we may also point out that this Court has the plenary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and even otherwise the principles enunciated under Chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 27 to 32 of the Civil Procedure Code and the other provisions therein read with the Rules famed under Chapter-XXVIII by the Patna High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act empowering the Court to secure the attendance of a petitioner. 11. It is also necessary to secure the presence of the appellant as the formal charges, if have to be framed, the same shall be done in his personal presence. 12. In the present case, there are special circumstances as indicated hereinabove which did require the personal presence of the appellant in the background above. 11. It is also necessary to secure the presence of the appellant as the formal charges, if have to be framed, the same shall be done in his personal presence. 12. In the present case, there are special circumstances as indicated hereinabove which did require the personal presence of the appellant in the background above. This attitude of the appellant, therefore, calls for distress proceedings to be undertaken and we are constrained to issue a bailable warrant issued under the signature of the Registrar General, to be executed by the Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, who is present in Court, through his agencies as he may direct for ensuring production of the corpus of the appellant before this Court by day after tomorrow. Any failure on the part of the Administration shall be viewed seriously as a failure of Administration having come to the aid of this Court for enforcement of this Court’s order. 13. Put up day after tomorrow. 14. A copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State with a request to the learned Advocate General, who is present in Court, to again make himself available for the assistance of this Court together with all such details of the background of the case that has been indicated hereinabove, particularly with regard to the functioning of the appellant in the Bihar Land Tribunal and his involvement in the criminal case. 15. The Registrar General to hand over the warrants to the Inspector General of Police, Headquarters.