Dr. Deo Chandra Choudhary, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.705 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7701 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Deo Chandra Choudhary, son of Tripta Narayan Choudhary, resident of Bhawani NIwas, Nargauna Campus, Manokamna Mahavir Mandir, P.O.- K.S.D.S.U., District-Darbhanga, retired as Commissioned Principal, Marwari College, Darbhanga.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar namely, Amir Subhani.

2.

Sri Sanjay Kumar, presently posted as Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Shri S.P. Singh, presently posted as Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.

4.

Dr. Mustaque Ahmed, presently posted as Registrar, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.

5.

Sri Syed Fazle Raahman, presently posted as Finance Officer, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate :

Mr. Purushottam Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, AC to GA-12 For the University :

Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University, Mr. Kinkar Kumar and learned counsel for the State.

The learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits that State has already preferred an LPA bearing No. 335 of 2022 against the order passed in the writ application of which contempt is being alleged. The learned counsel for the State

Patna High Court MJC No.705 of 2022(2) dt.28-04-2023 2/2 raises issues of maintainability of the present contempt application and submits that the contempt application has been filed by a person who is not the writ petitioner, it is next submitted that if the writ petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of the learned Writ Court as such, they have not filed contempt application then what locus the present petitioner has to move this Court by filing instant contempt application when he was not even the petitioner in the writ application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant contempt application is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the State. Considering the submissions made by the learned State counsel, the Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt application.

Hence, the contempt application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Adnan/- U