Prakash Narayan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1477 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5576 of 2013 =========================================================== Prakash Narayan, son of Late Shree Chand Prasad, resident of village-Tandpar, P.O.-Chiksoura, P.S.-Hilsa, District-Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Amrit Lal Meena, son of not known, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. E.L.S.N. Bala Prasad, son of not known, the Divisional Commissioner, Patna.

4. Mrs. Alka Sahni, wife of not known, the District Magistrate, Nalanda.

5. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, son of not known, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

6. Mr. Ravi Prasad, son of not known, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms , Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

7. Mr. Shyam Nandan Pd., son of not known, the Block Development officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

8. Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, son of not known, the Circle officer, Hilsa, DistrictNalanda.

9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, son of not known, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hilsa, District-Nalanda.

10. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, son of not known, the Officer-in-Charge, Hilsa P.S., District-Nalanda.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnakar Ambastha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Praveen Kumar, AC to GP-22. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-02-2015 -------------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AC to GP-22, appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.04.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5576

Patna High Court MJC No.1477 of 2014 dt.16-02-2015 2/2 of 2013, which is under contempt, has already been complied with by the concerned opposite parties.

3. Since in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the order under contempt has been complied with by the concerned opposite parties, no further action is required to be taken against the concerned opposite parties.

4. Accordingly, this contempt application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U