Kapindra Prasad Yadav, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.131 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.988 of 2018 ====================================================== Kapindra Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Jagdeo Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Barari, Police Station-Barari, District-Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Deepak Kumar, The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

Deepak Kumar, The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Punam Kumari, The District Magistrate, Katihar. 4.

Neeraj Kumar, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar. 5.

Akhilesh Kumar Jain, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

6.

Akhilesh Kumar Jain, Secretary, Bihar State Religious Trust Board, Bihar, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag 12) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 09-04-2024 The present M.J.C./Contempt petition is not maintainable since there is no specific direction in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 988 of 2018.

2. It is necessary to reproduce order dated 30.01.2019 and it reads as under:- Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat,

Patna High Court MJC No.131 of 2020 dt.09-04-2024 2/2 learned AC to AAG 12 and Learned Counsel for the Religious Trust Board.

In the nature of the complaint that the petitioner in Public Interest seeks to raise through this writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the matter actually needs to be addressed before the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, who are fully vested with the powers to examine the complaint.

The writ petition is disposed of.

3. Taking note of the aforementioned order, the petitioner has not made out a contempt. Accordingly, the present M.J.C./Contempt petition stands disposed of as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke appropriate remedy.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) manish/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.04.2024 Transmission Date NA