Muni Kumari And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1952 of 2015 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 28 of 2013 ======================================================
1. Muni Kumari wife of Jai Prakash Gupta, resident of village- Nawada Khurd, P.s.- Ganga Bridge, District- Vaishali
2. Dharmendra Kumar son of Sheojee Thakur, resident of village Chesti, P.S. Ganga Bridge, District Vaishali .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri Amarjeet Sinha, Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resouces Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna at present Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna
2. Sri Ashutosh Kumar, The Director, Elementary Education, Department of Education, Human Resource Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna at present Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna
3. Sri Jitendra Prasad Srivastava, the Collector, Vaishali, Hajipur
4. Sri Shyma Shankar Prasad, Member, District- Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali, at Hajipur
5. Munni Kumari, Prakhand Pramukh, Raghopur Prakhand, Raghopur, Vaishali
6. Sri Shahsi Bhushan Rai, Block Development Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali at Hajipur
7. Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh, Block Education Extension Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Surya Kant Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 28-01-2017 Delay of 11 days is condoned. I.A. No.8707 of 2015 is allowed.
Coming to the merits of the matter, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application for initiation of contempt
Patna High Court LPA No.1952 of 2015 (2) dt.28-01-2017 2/2 against the respondents and it is this order of dismissal passed on 7.5.2015, which has been assailed.
Such an appeal is not maintainable against the order concerned. LPA is misplaced. It is dismissed. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.N.Taneja v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1988 SCC (Cri) 546.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) sk U