Patna High CourtMJC/677/2012dismissed

Deva Nandan Pathak v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-10Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.677 of 2012 ====================================================== Deva Nandan Pathak son of Late Pandit Rameshwar Pathak, resident of village -Malipur, PS-Garhpura, District-Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mr. Pratyaya Amrit, the Secretary, RCD. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Yogendra Bhakta, the Additional Secretary, RCD. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. Amrendra Bhushan, the Deputy Secretary, RCD. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. Mr. E. Baban Ram, the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, RCD. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

6. Mr. I.D.S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna.

7. Mr. Arvind Kumar, the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chapra Division, Chapra

8. Mr. Raj Kumar, the Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Rosera, Samastipur

9. Mr. Azmat Ali Ansari, the P.F.O., Chapra.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birju Prasad For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma Aag5 Dr. M. Tiwari, AC to AAG-5 For the Accountant General: Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan with Miss Gunja ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-08-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Accountant General and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner submits that the opposite parties have violated the order dated 28th October 2009 passed in CWJC No. 11111 of 2009.

Order dated 28th October 2009 speaks that the petitioner would file a representation and the authorities will dispose of the same by a reasoned order.

Patna High Court MJC No.677 of 2012 (20) dt.10-08-2015 2/2 It has been informed by the opposite parties that all the payments have been made to the petitioner and representation of the petitioner has also been disposed by a reasoned order. In such view of the matter, there is no need to proceed with the matter. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the representation, he will have liberty to take recourse as available in law.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U