← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/637/2014disposed

Uday Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-02-12Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.637 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15205 of 2013 =========================================================== Uday Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Brijnandan Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village Khauna, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jehanabad.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2. Md. Suhail, District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

3. Sri Manoranjan Kumar, Sub Divisional Magistrate Jehanabad.

4. Sri Sanjay Kumar Rajnish, Block Development Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad.

5. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Circle Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. This contempt application is filed for non-compliance of order dated 22.08.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15205 of 2013 whereunder the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Circle Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad to take action in accordance with law after compliance of Principles of Natural Justice to ensure removal of encroachment from the pond at the earliest and in any case preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits

Patna High Court MJC No.637 of 2014 dt.12-02-2015 2/2 that in compliance of order under contempt has already been complied by the opposite party no.5, which is detailed in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the show cause filed on 18.07.2014.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after removal of the encroachment, some persons have also tried to encroach the pond.

In view of the above submission, since the order under contempt has already been complied by the opposite party no.5, no further action is required to be taken. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of.

However, if petitioner is aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to take recourse to remedy in accordance with law. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U