Raj Nath Singh v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2194 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6517 of 2013 ====================================================== Raj Nath Singh, son of late Jag Narayan Singh, resident of villageNirakhpur, P.O. and Police Station- Paliganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, through Sri Pratyaya Amrit its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna

2. Sri Pratyaya Amrit, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna

3. Sri Ram Naresh Yadav, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar Area, Electricity Board, Patna

4. Sri R.P. Singh, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Patna

5. Sri Sanjay Kumar, the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric SupplySub-Division, Bikram, District- Patna

6. The State of Bihar through Sri A.K. Sinha, the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

7. Sri Sandeep Paundrik, the Secretary, Energy Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, SC-13 Mrs. Usha Kumari Singh, AC to SC -13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 23-05-2017 Inter alia contending that an order passed, based on the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat held in the High Court on 23.11.2013, has not been complied with, this application has been filed for initiating action for contempt. If the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat has not been complied with, remedy is not filing a contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act or under Article 215 of the Constitution and award passed in the

Patna High Court MJC No.2194 of 2014 (4) dt.23-05-2017 2/2 Lok Adalat has to be executed in accordance to the provisions contained in the Legal Services Authority Act, 1989 and for the said purpose, the contempt application is not maintainable. That apart, from the show cause it is seen that the compliance has been made and payment made to the petitioner. That being so, in case, the petitioner has any grievance still subsisting, he may take recourse to such remedy as may be available in law for settlement of the grievance. With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U