1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah ordering them each to pay Rs. 12,500/- as compensation to Respondent No. 8 on grounds of allegedly having kept her minor son in the lock-up contrary, to law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they were not properly heard before the District Magistrate as no intimation for appearance on the adjourned date was given and they never appeared before the District Magistrate much less conceded their guilt. The submission is that recordings in the order-sheet to the contrary are erroneous.

4. The order-sheet of the District Magistrate at Annexure-1 adequately notices the issuance of notice to the petitioners and their appearance through Advocate when they were duly heard. The impugned order then goes on to notice the appearance of the petitioners, inquiries made from them during the proceedings when they allegedly confessed their guilt.

5. The order of the District Magistrate dated 18.6.2009 is in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings registered as Misc. Case No. 54 of 2007-2008. The order-sh