Ram Sharan Rai, v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.4857 of 2014 (4) dt.08-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4857 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Ram Sharan Rai, son of Late Ram Dahin Rai, resident of Mohalla Dujara, Western of the Masazid, P.O. and P.S. Budha Colony, G.P.O., Patna-1, District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar throughMr. Dr. B. Rajendra Commissioner-cumSecretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. Mr. Kuldeep Narayan, Patna Regional Development (Authority) (Dissolved)/ Patna Municipal Corporation, through City Commissioner.

3. Mr. Kuldeep Narayan, the City Commissioner, Patna Regional Development Authority (Dissolved)/ Patna Municipal Corporation, Mauryalok Complex, Block- C, 2nd Floor, Dakbanglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.

4. Mr. P.K. Singh, the controller of Finance and Accounts, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Block-C, 2nd Floor, Dak Banglow Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna.K .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyama Kant Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2015 Reply to show cause on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is filed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

It would appear from the order dated 28.3.2014 passed in CWJC no. 3963/2011 that this court directed opposite party no.3 to pass reasoned order on the representation petition of the petitioner and annexure A to the show cause reflects that opposite party no.3 has already disposed of representation of the petitioner on 20.4.2015 by reasoned order. In view of the aforesaid facts, this contempt petition stands disposed of.

Patna High Court MJC No.4857 of 2014 (4) dt.08-07-2015 However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order passed by opposite party no.3, he may take legal recourse before appropriate forum. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahid U T