Mahmud Hasan v. B.S.Housing Board And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.585 of 1989 =========================================================== Mahmud Hasan, son of Late Nurul Hasan, resident of 335 of MIGH Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna-20, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar State Housing Board through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 6 Mangles Road, Patna, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna
2. Shri B. Kapatuhuama, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 6 Mangles Road, Patna, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna
3. Shri Awadheshwar Prasad, Estate Manager-cum-Additional Secretary, the Bihar State Housing Board, 6 Mangles Road, Patna, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna
4. Sri K. Armugum, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 6 Mangles Road, Patna, P.S. Secretariat, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. None For the Board : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 30-08-2016 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board is present. From the record, it appears that the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6513 of 1988 was disposed of under order dated 26.04.1989 passed by a Division Bench of this Court with certain directions in relation to maintenance of flat allotted to the writ petitioner. The flat was constructed by the Board and was in illegal occupation. The repair and maintenance work not having been done, the present contempt proceedings were instituted. From the order-
Patna High Court MJC No.585 of 1989 dt.30-08-2016 2/2 sheet of this case, it would appear that various steps were taken by the authorities upon intervention by this Court, even Pleader Commissioner was appointed to survey the area and give a report. In pursuance to the report of the Pleader Commissioner various steps were directed to be taken by the Court. It was then reported to the Court that all works have been done. After 1992 there does not appear to be anything on record to show that there has been any compliance of the orders of this Court passed in the writ proceedings. We are now in the year 2016 i.e. 24 years later and there being no further complaint, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with these proceedings. The proceedings are, accordingly, terminated and the contempt petition stands disposed of.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/Rajesh U