Krishna Murari v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Department Government Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.239 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16985 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Krishna Murari, son of Late Naresh Singh, Resident of Abdalpur, Sultanpur, P.S. Fatuha, District-Patna.

2.

Antim Devi, Wife of Krishna Murari, Resident of Abdalpur, Sultanpur, P.S. Fatuha, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Dr. N. Vijaylakshi, I.A.S. 2.

The Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Navdeep Shukla, I.A.S.

3.

Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Patna Division, Patna, Dr. Diwakar Prasad.

4.

The District Magistrate, Patna Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, I.A.S. 5.

The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Patna, Dr. Arun Kumar. 6.

The Block Animal Husbandry Officer, Fatuha, Patna, Dr. Prabhat Kumar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Additional Advocate General 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The application is filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against a willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 12.11.2024 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16985 of 2024.

3. A show cause affidavit came to be filed on behalf of opposite party no. 3 with a categorical averments that in compliance with the order of this Court, the claim of the

Patna High Court MJC No.239 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025 2/2 petitioners was duly considered by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar, Patna and the same was rejected under memo no. 571(ni) dated 10.02.2025 for the reasons stated therein.

4. Considering the nature of the order under contempt and the outcome as contained in afore-noted letter, this Court does not find any reason to continue with the contempt petition.

5. Accordingly, the present application stands closed, with a liberty to the petitioner; if they are not satisfied with the order, then they may assail the same.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U