Hare Ram Ray v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1452 of 2017 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4206 of 2014 ====================================================== Hare Ram Ray, Son of Sri Kamla Kant Ray, resident of Majhauli, Police Station- Krishnagarh, Saraiya in the district of Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. Abhaya Nand, son of not known to the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2.

Mr. Abhaya Nand, son of not known to the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Mr. S. Reveendran, son of not known to the petitioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Police Human 4.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the Chairman, Central Recruitment Board-cum-Inspector general of Police, SCRB, Bihar, Patna 5.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman, Recruitment Board, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG 3 - Aag 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 09-12-2021 Contempt petition being numbered as MJC No. 1956 of 2013, titled as Hare Ram Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C.No. 20673 of 2011, titled as Hare Ram Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., was dismissed on 10.09.2014 and the application seeking restoration of the said petition was filed on 11.11.2014 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.04.2017 being MJC No. 4206 of 2014, titled as Hare Ram Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Hence, the instant application being MJC No. 1452 of 2017, titled as Hare Ram

Patna High Court MJC No.1452 of 2017(3) dt.09-12-2021 2/2 Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., seeking restoration of the earlier application MJC No. 4206 of 2014, stands filed. Having perused the record, no reason sufficient enough is forthcoming for explaining the delay or not pursuing the matter. Even otherwise, contempt is an issue between the court and the contemnor.

It is alleged that the direction issued by the Division Bench in LPA No. 831 of 2009, titled as Ajay Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., have not been complied with. If that were so, it is always open for the petitioner to agitate the issue afresh with the authorities, but it cannot be said that there is any mala fide intent or the actions of the respondents are mala fide in complying with the orders passed by this Court. Litigation must come to an end at some stage. Litigant is not an illiterate/rustic person; not prevented from taking recourse to the remedies provided under law. He ought to have been vigilant in pursuing the matter.

As such, the instant application is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol, CJ) Sujit/Ashwini U