Karpuri Thakur Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4094 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1727 of 2009 =========================================================== Karpuri Thakur Sanskrit Prathmik Sah Madhya Vidyalaya, Chaura Mahrail, Madhubani through its Acting Head - Master Sanjeev Kumar son of Sri Satya Narayan Choudhary resident of village - Chaura Mahrail, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. R.K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Ashutosh Kumar, Special Director, Sanskrit, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Ram Dev Prasad the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Patna, Bihar.

5. Milind Kumar Sinha, The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. KUNDAN BHADUR SINGH =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-07-2017 Considering the following facts, I am not inclined to initiate action for contempt in the present case. In the original writ petition, petitioner was not a party and he had not assailed the action of the respondents by filing any writ petition. Only because in the operative part of the order the State Government was directed to reconsider the case of all the schools, petitioner had represented the matter before the Board and the State Government, thereafter did not take action, this application

Patna High Court MJC No.4094 of 2014 dt.20-07-2017 2/2 is filed.

From the documents available on record, it is seen that petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board vide Annexure-2 on 21.01.2013. There is no material to indicate as to how and in what manner the aforesaid application was submitted to the Board who received the same and what were the documents which were annexed with the application. That apart, if the application was submitted on 21.01.2013, petition does not indicate as to what further action was taken by the petitioner between 21.01.2013 and 22.09.2014 when this contempt application was filed.

Keeping in view the manner in which the action is taken by the petitioner, I am not inclined to initiate any action for contempt. In case the petitioner has any grievance, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to claim the same, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid the application stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Shageer/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 27/07/2017 Transmission Date NA