Patna High CourtMJC/1729/2015dismissed

Ramdeo Mahto v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company And ORS

2016-02-10Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1729 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3054 of 2014 ====================================================== Ramdeo Mahto, son of late Ram Briksh Maho, resident of village- Rahauli, P.O. Majhaulia, P.S. Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bihar State Power Holding Company through its Chairman-cumManaging Director (Sri Prataya Amrit), Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The Director Finance (Sri Pramod Tiwary), North Bihar Power Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Company, Mithila Electric Supply, Darbhanga.

3. The Executive Engineer, (Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh), Electric Supply Division, Jhanjharpur.

4. The Assistant Engineer (Sri Subhash Chandra Prasad), Electric Supply Sub-Division, Jhanjharpur.

.... .... Opp.Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2016 Heard Sri Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opp.Parties/ Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against Opp.Parties on an allegation of wilful disobedience to an order dated 23.01.2015 passed in C.W.J.C.No.3054 of 2014. By the said order, after noticing the fact that most of the retiral dues were already paid and the petitioner was regularly getting pension, this Court disposed of the

Patna High Court MJC No.1729 of 2015 (3) dt.10-02-2016 2/2 writ petition. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation, if any grievance exists. Thereafter, a direction was given that even in case of refusal, Respondent no.3 was directed to pass a speaking order.

In this case, by filing show cause, Opp.Parties have stated that in compliance with the order of the writ court, a reasoned order has already been passed vide Annexure-A to the show cause.

In view of the fact that in compliance with the order of the writ court, a reasoned order has already been passed, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a case of contempt. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U