Mohan Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4071 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17074 of 2014 ====================================================== Mohan Manjhi Son of Late Raghuni Manjhi Resident of Village - Bikram Kaituka, P.S. - Maker, Distt. - Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Hukum Singh Mina, the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Binay Kumar, the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra,

4. Sri Amzad Ahyar Burf, the Distt. Co-operative Officer, Saran at Chapra.

5. Sri Mritunjay Kumar, The Circle Officer, Maker he is Incharge of Block Development Officer, Maker in the District of Saran at Chapra.

6. Sri Dharm Nath Rai, Son of Late Narsingh Rai The Chairman of Primary Agriculture Credit Societies, Kaituka Nandan, Block Maker in the District of Saran at Chapra.

.... .... Opp.Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 18-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The contempt application has been filed alleging willful violation of the order of this Court dated 26.9.2014 passed in CWJC No. 17074 of 2014. The direction of this Court was to consider and dispose of the objection of the petitioner, Annexure2 series. The matter was related to inclusion of names in the voter list of PACS with regard to which the claim of the petitioner was that names of 165 members ought to have been included.

Patna High Court MJC No.4071 of 2014 (2) dt.18-03-2015 2/2 In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4, it is stated that all the 61 objections that had been received had been disposed of by the Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer and the order under contempt stands complied with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for further adjournment to file reply to the said show cause. The show cause was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.12.2014 yet despite passage of more than three months the averments made in the show cause have not been countered. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find no reason to proceed further with the contempt application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Anjana Mishra, J) S.Pandey/- U