Jichhu Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE NO. 352 OF 2020 IN M.J.C. No. 3825 of 2013 ====================================================== Jichhu Mandal son of late Khajanchi Mandal, resident of village- Sri Rampur, P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Sanjeev Hans, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Gorakh Nath, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Water Resources Department, Patna.

4. Sri Suresh Singh, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Digha, Patna.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, son of Sri Kuldip Prasad, the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Chapra.

6. Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, name of father not known to the petitioner, the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division,, Bounsi, Banka.

7. Sri Anil Kumar Mandal, son of late Ram Pukar Mandal, the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2021 The instant case has been taken up for consideration

through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

The present petition has been filed seeking compliance of the order dated 5.8.2014 passed in M.J.C. No. 3825 of 2013 whereby and where under the respondent State was granted time to file further show cause.

This Court finds that the aforesaid M.J.C. No. 3825 of 2013 has already stood disposed of by an order dated 11.2.2017 passed by the learned Lok-Adalat, hence, there is no occasion to proceed against the contemnors.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to some typing mistake, the petitioner has wrongly sought compliance of another order. If that be so, the petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh contempt petition in accordance with law.

The present petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Tiwary/- U T