Md. Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Husain, v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1185 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25840 of 2019 ====================================================== Md. Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Husain, Son of Md. Sahamat, resident of VillageMaidhara, Police Station-Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. .. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Pankaj Dixit, the then District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3.
Dharmendra Kumar, District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jintendra Pd. Singh, Advocate Ms. Sripriya Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 04-09-2023 The present M.J.C./contempt petition is filed for noncompliance of the order dated 06.01.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 25840 of 2019 read with petitioner's representation dated 13.06.2020.
2. Even though this Court has specifically directed to decide the grievance of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation. Such time limit was over by 12.09.2020 whereas the petitioner's grievance has been redressed only on 14.08.2023/17.08.2023. There is a delay of nearly three years.
3. Learned counsel for the State tried to overcome the
Patna High Court MJC No.1185 of 2021(4) dt.04-09-2023 2/2 delay issue in contending that the COVID 19 pandemic period was prevalent. It is to be noted that COVID 19 pandemic period was over in the month of April, 2022. Therefore, the aforementioned stand of the learned counsel for the State is rejected.
4. Since the order of this Court has been complied on 14.08.2023/17.08.2023. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. stands dropped reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 14.08.2023/17.08.2023 in accordance with law, if so warranted.
5. Moreover the present contempt petition is pending consideration for the last two years, the present case is fit for imposition of cost for the reasons that there is no application for extension of time on behalf of respondents in implementation of the order dated 06.01.2020 read with petitioner's representation dated 13.06.2020. Cost is quantified @ Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). Cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J) (Arun Kumar Jha, J) GAURAV S./- U