← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/494/2015disposed

Chandra Kishore Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-12Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.494 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1818 of 2013 ====================================================== Chandra Kishore Singh, S/o Late Ram Jatan Singh, Resident of villageKrishnapur, Baikunth, P.S. - Warisnagar, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Mr. R.K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Mr. Viveka Nand Sukla, The Registrar, The Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

3. Mr. Dr. Pandit Palandey, The Vice Chancellor, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University.

4. Mr. R.S. Giri, The Principal, R.P.S. Collage, Chakeyaj, Mahnar Road, Mahnar, Vaishali.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Uday Prasad, AC to G.P.-22 For the University : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vikash Ratan Bharti, Advocate Mr. Rohit Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the University as well as the learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the University submits that as per the order dated 22.03.2018, contained in Letter No.373 (Annexure A to the supplementary show cause filed by the State), the order under contempt has now been complied with and a reasoned order has been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Patna High Court MJC No.494 of 2015 (9) dt.12-04-2018 2/2 In view of the aforementioned submissions and after perusal of Annexure A to the supplementary show cause, no further case of contempt is made out.

The application stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the said order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure A) in an appropriate proceeding. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U