Subhash Chandra Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3029 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13223 of 2010 ====================================================== Subhash Chandra Pandey S/o Late Sakaldeo Pandey resident of village - Nadawan, P.O. - Baniyapur, District - Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Anjani Kumar Singh Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, the Managing Director State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Sone Bhawan, Patna.

3. Sri Kumar Sanjay Prasad, the Chief Administrator, Bihar, Patna.

4. Sri Nand Kishore Roy, the District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Sone Bhawan, Patna.

5. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna

6. Sri S.K. Sinha, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, Kachahari Campus, Vakalatnama Bhawan Muzaffarpur - 84201, District - Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 23-02-2018 On 13.8.2010, C.W.J.C. No.13223 of 2010 was disposed of by an innocuous order only granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation supported by documents and the respondents were directed to decide the same. Respondents vide Annexure A have rejected the representation on various grounds indicated in the order.

Now, by filing a rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner is challenging the decision taken on various grounds taken therein.

Patna High Court MJC No.3029 of 2014 (7) dt.23-02-2018 2/2 Once the only direction issued by the learned Writ Court was to consider and take a decision on the representation, the reasons that weighed with the respondents in rejecting the representation cannot be the subject-matter for consideration in this proceeding. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the manner in which his representation has been rejected, it gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge in accordance with law in an appropriate proceedings, but not a case for initiating contempt proceeding.

With the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner, this application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- U