Patna High CourtMJC/383/1996dismissed

Lalita Singh v. State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-03Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra,Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.383 of 1996 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1371 of 92,1941 of 94 CONTEMPT ====================================================== Lalita Singh, son of Late Rajgovind Singh, Village and Post officeDalsagar, P.S. Buxar, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The State of Bihar 2.Bishwanath Prasad Choudhari, District Collector, Bhojpur (Bihar) 3.Shashi Shekhar Sharma, District Collector, Bhojpur (Bihar) 4.Deepak Kumar, District Collector, Buxar (Bihar) 5.Jai Ram Lal Mina, District Collector, Buxar (Bihar) 6.Shakti Kumar Negi, District Collector, Buxar (Bihar) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 03-07-2015 The Office notes do not appear to state the correct position. There appears to be a show cause on the record filed on behalf of the opposite parties.

It is stated in the show cause that the representation of the petitioner was considered on 18.11.1992 and was rejected by the Collector, Buxar. Subsequently, on 25.11.1992 it was placed before the Establishment Committee and the order of the Collector was confirmed. The resolution of the Establishment Committee is annexed to the show cause. The direction of this Court dated 21.11.1991 was to the petitioner to make a representation before the Collector,

Patna High Court MJC No.383 of 1996 (3) dt.03-07-2015 2/2 Bhojpur at Arrah and in case such a representation was filed, the same was to be disposed of within a period of five months. The Bhojpur district was reorganized and Buxar district was created in 1991 and subsequently the Collector of Buxar district has disposed of the representation of the petitioner. Thus, in our view, no case for proceeding under the contempt jurisdiction is made out.

The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Anjana Mishra, J) S.Pandey/- U