Patna High CourtMJC/1839/2013dismissed

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-06-22Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1839 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11654 of 2012 ====================================================== Anil Kumar S/O Late Sadhu Sharan Singh Resident Of Village- Bandh Rasulpur, P.S- Islampur, Distt- Nalanda.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna, Mr. Rahul Singh.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna, Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary.

3. The District Superintendent of Education, Distt- Patna, Mr. Keshav Prasad.

4. The District Education Officer, Distt- Banka, Mr. Jyoti Kumar.

5. The District Magistrate, Distt- Banka, Mr. Deepak Anand.

6. The District Programme Officer, Distt- Banka, Mr. Hasan Haque.

7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Amarpur, Distt- Banka Miss. Rita Mishra.

8. The Treasury Officer, Distt- Banka, Mr. Abdul Rajjak.

9. The G.P.F. Officer, Distt- Banka, Mr. Bindu Bandani.

10. The Accountant General ( A And E), Bihar, Patna, Mr. R.S. Dhavdhiyal. .... .... Opp.Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhashwar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, AC to GA-2 For the Acct. General : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 6 it is stated that all the admissible amounts have been paid to the petitioner, some of them provisionally on account of the pendency of the departmental proceeding.

Patna High Court MJC No.1839 of 2013 (5) dt.22-06-2016 2/2 In view of the aforesaid statements, which has not been controverted by the petitioner and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not in a position to controvert as the petitioner has suffered paralytic attack, it appears, prima facie, that the order under contempt has been complied with. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed.

In case the petitioner finds that the order has not been fully complied with then he may at a later stage take appropriate steps in the matter.

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