Krishna Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3184 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9030 of 2010 ====================================================== Krishna Devi , wife of Late Mahendra Sharma Resident Of Village And P.O Sahar Telpa,Police Station- Karpi In The District Of Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, Through Dr. Deepak Prasad, Principal Secretary, Department Of Irrigation, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

2. Dr. Deepak Prasad, The Principal Secretary, Department Of Minor Irrigation, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. K.N. Lal, The Engineer- In- Chief- Cum Additional Commissioner, Department Of Minor Irrigation, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. Rajbansh Rai, The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Muzaffarpur, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

5. Mr. Rajbansh Rai, The Superintendent Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Muzaffarpur.

6. Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bettiah.

7. Mr. I.D.S. Dhariwal, The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. For the Opposite Parties : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC- XXVIII.

The present petition was filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties on an allegation of willful disobedience to an order dated 21/5/2010 passed in CWJC No. 9030 of 2010. By the said order the writ petition was disposed of on the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for granting liberty for filing representation before

Patna High Court MJC No.3184 of 2013 (9) dt.07-01-2015 2/2 respondent no. 6 and thereafter, respondent no. 6 was required to examine the grievances of the petitioner.

In this case show cause and supplementary show cause has been filed and in the supplementary show cause in paragraph no. 6 a specific statement has been made that post retiral dues of petitioner has been paid including interest. The statement made in paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary show cause has not been rebutted by petitioner by filing any rejoinder. In view of the facts disclosed in the supplementary show cause, the court is of the opinion that the order of the writ court has already been complied with. Accordingly, there is no need to keep the matter pending.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U