Patna High CourtMJC/2613/2017disposed

Surya Narain Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar Through The Sri Atul Prasad, Principal Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare,

2017-09-20Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2613 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6318 of 2016 ====================================================== Surya Narain Chaudhary, son of Late Yogeshwar Chaudhary, resident of village Dhakjari, P.S. Andharatharhi, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Sri Atul Prasad, Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. Sri R.S. Daftuar, the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Second Floor, Indira bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna

3. Sri Md.Tarique, the Establishment Officer, Head Quarter, ICDS Directorate, Second Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna

4. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga

5. Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaudhary, the District Programme Officer, Darbhanga

6. Ms. Priti Kumari, the Child Development Project Officer, Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga

7. Smt. Ruma Kumari, the Child Development Project Officer, Bahadurpur, District Darbhanaga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha - AAG 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

Although the matter has been posted for consideration in the office note which is upheld as the name of the Ms. Mithali, Advocate does not appear in the body of the Vakalatnama and thus the acceptance by Ms. Mitali, Advocate to the Vakalatnama is rejected.

Mr. Binod Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner submits

Patna High Court MJC No.2613 of 2017 (2) dt.20-09-2017 2/2 that on a misconception that the contempt application has been filed as the order at Annexure-3 requires to be questioned in a writ petition. He thus seeks liberty to do so while praying for withdrawal of the contempt application.

Permission is allowed.

The contempt application is disposed of with the liberty so prayed and granted.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U