Prem Chandra Prasad v. The Bihar State Co-Operative Land,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.39 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17822 of 2017 ====================================================== Prem Chandra Prasad Son of Ganesh Rai @ Ganesh Prasad, resident of Village - Mohaddipur, P.O. Rampur, P.S. - Chiraiya, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bihar State Co-operative Land, Namely Sri Akhlesh Kumar (Managing Director).

2.

The District Manager, Land Development Bank, Saran at Chapra, Namely Sri Shashank Kumar..

3.

The Branch Manager, Land Development Bank, Garkha Branch, Saran at Chapra, Namely Mayanand Prasad.

4.

The Commissioner, Central Provident Fund Office R-Block, Patna,Namely Ms. Neelam Shami Rao.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate Mr. Bind Kishore Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 15-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. The instant application has been filed alleging violation of the directions contained in order dated 28.9.2020 passed in CWJC no.17822 of 2017 whereby the writ application was disposed of in terms of the order dated 14.9.2015 passed in CWJC no.16267 of 2007 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Central Registrar of the Multi State Cooperative Society who was to examine the same and do the

Patna High Court MJC No.39 of 2022(5) dt.15-02-2025 2/2 needful as enjoined upon him under section 84 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002.

3. On perusal of the contents of the petition, this Court finds that though allegation of contempt is levelled against the Central Registrar of the Multi State Cooperative Society, he has not been made opposite party herein.

4. In the opinion of the Court, the contempt application cannot proceed in absence of the contemnor having been made opposite party.

5. The application is dismissed, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievances with the concerned opposite party and in case the directions contained in the aforesaid order is still not complied with to file an appropriate application before this Court with respect to the same.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U