Anup Kumar Pal v. Prof Amarnath Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2037 of 2001 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6579 of 98 C.REV 312 of 99 =========================================================== Anup Kumar Pal, son of Amulya Chauhan Pal, resident of Mohalla-Colony No. 1, Durgasthan, P.S. and District-Katihar, at present Counter Clerk, MJM College, Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Prof Amarnath Singh, son of name not known to the petitioner, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura

2. Sri. Murlidhar Yadav, son of name not known to the petitioner, Registrar, B.N.M. University, Madhepura

3. Dr. Manju Verma, wife of name not known to the petitioner, Incharge Principal, M.J.M. Mahila College, Katihar

4. Sr. Dhurub Gopal Jha, son of name not known to the petitioner, Bursun, M.J.M Mahila College, Katihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. TARANATH JHA For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N.ROY =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-08-2017 This application has been filed for initiating action for contempt more than 16 years back in the year 2001 and at that point of time, it was the grievance of the petitioner that the orders passed on 27.09.1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 6579 of 1998 and further on 10.08.2000 in Civil Review No. 312 of 1999 have not been complied with. The matter has been pending since then. Series of show cause and counter affidavits have been filed and from the material that has come on record, it is seen that according to the University the claim of the petitioner has been settled.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court MJC No.2037 of 2001 dt.25-08-2017 2/2 submits that the claim has not been properly settled. Certain amounts are still subsisting and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner made statement that petitioner may be granted liberty to raise further claim with the Vice Chancellor of the University and thereafter in case any grievance still subsists, he may be granted liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available under law. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the prayer made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, without proceeding further in the matter, this application stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise a claim with regard to any dues still subsisting with the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Vice Chancellor, in case does not decide the claim within a period of sixty days, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available under law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Shageer/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 31/08/2017 Transmission Date NA