Devendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1100 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13262 of 2022 ====================================================== Devendra Prasad Son of Prameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village-Durgapatti, P.S.-Harlakhi, Dist-Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri Pankaj Kumar Pal, Secretary, Bihar Rural Work Department, Government of Bihar.

2.

The Director (Secondary Education Department) Govt. of Bihar, Sri Manoj Kumar.

3.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division-2, Benipatti Sivir Rahika, Dist.-Madhubani, Sri Keshev Sahani. 4.

The District Education Officer, Madhubani, Sri Nasim Ahmad. 5.

The District Programme Officer (Scheme and Account) Madhubani, Sri Nazibullah.

6.

The Junior Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Benipatti-2, Rahika Sivir, Madhubani, Sri Mayan Agrawal.

7.

The Head Master, High School Sonail, Dist.-Madhubani, Sri Bijay Kumar Yadav.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baidya Nath Prasad, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta (GP 10) For the Director Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna :

Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 31-10-2023 Pursuant to our earlier order dated 07.10.2023, The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna (opposite party no.

2) is present in the Court.

02. Second show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. Perused the unconditional apology insofar

Patna High Court MJC No.1100 of 2023(4) dt.31-10-2023 2/2 as non-compliance of the certain portions of the order(s) of this Court. It is also stated in the show cause that a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) would be paid to the petitioner's counsel during the course of day.

03. The Director being the head of the Department must read Court's orders with due care before apprising this Court that there is a compliance to the order(s) of this Court.

04. Prima facie, the Director has not read the order properly while contending that there is a compliance to the order(s) of this Court and the same is deprecated. However, having regard to the fact that the opposite parties have complied the directions of this Court, we drop the contempt proceeding.

05. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. (contempt petition) stands dropped.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/- Annu Kumar/- U