Kameshwar Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2003 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12210 of 2011 ====================================================== Kameshwar Prasad Sharma, Son of Late Jugal Rai Sharma, Resident of Village and Post Office - Mirapur, Police Station -Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Human Resources Development Department, (Vikash Bhawan New Secretariat) Patna namely Sri R.K. Mahajan.

2. The Director (Primary) Human Resources Development Department, (Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariate), Patna namely Sri Sridhar C.

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur namely Ganesh Dutt Jha,

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur now the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur namely Sri Awanindra Kumar Sinha.

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Muraul, District - Muzaffarpur namely Sri Harendra Dubey.

6. The Head Master cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Rajkiya Middle School Muraul, Circle - Muraul, District - Muzaffarpur namely Bhagya Narayan Jha.

7. The District Provident Fund Officer, Muzaffarpur namely Sri Dhananjay Mishra.

8. The Treasury Officer Muzaffarpur namely Bijay Kumar Singh.

9. The Accountant General (A & E), Birchand Patel Path, Patna namely Sri Sanjay Kumar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 08-02-2017 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

On a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the position today and whether the order has been complied, learned counsel is not in a position to answer.

Patna High Court MJC No.2003 of 2015 (2) dt.08-02-2017 2/2 The Court finds such to be unfortunate. First and foremost the matter is between the Court and the alleged contemnor and the petitioner has no role to play. In view of the said legal position, the Court in the present jurisdiction can only punish the contemnor and nothing else. The Court is not inclined to go into the matter to punish the opposite party, moreso when the matter is of the year 2015 and learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to assist the Court.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U