Patna High CourtMJC/694/2014dismissed

Sitaram Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-06-28The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.694 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8228 of 2013 ====================================================== Sitaram Prasad, S/O Chhotu Lal, Resident Of Mohalla Belbaganj, P.OImambari, P.S- Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dr. Sidharth, the Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Urban Development, Patna.

3. Kumar Ravi, the Collector, Darbhanga.

4. Kari Mahto, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Darbhanga.

5. Parmeshwer Ram, Municipal Commissioner, Darbhanga Municipal Corporation, Darbhanga.

6. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan (Cetified Regd. Architect), Mohalla- Hospital Road, Madhubani.

7. Smt. Shiv Kumari, W/O Sri Umashankar Prasad, Mohalla- Belbaganj, P.S- Laheria Sarai, Distt- Darbhanga.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, G.A.-8 For the Corporation : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 28-06-2017 In view of the subsequent order passed in the matter of building in question at the instance of one Shiv Devi, respondent No.7 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8228 of 2013 allowing the writ petition filed by Shiv Devi being CWJC No.25447 of 2013 quashing the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Darbhanga in consequence to the order dated 30th September, 2013 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8228 of 2013, it is not a fit case where in the light of the orders passed

Patna High Court MJC No.694 of 2014 (3) dt.28-06-2017 2/2 at the instance of the petitioner and thereafter at the instance of respondent No.7, a case for contempt is to be initiated. Accordingly, finding no case for initiation of action for contempt, the application is dismissed. Liberty to the parties to proceed in accordance with law with regard to the impugned action.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U