Amar Nath Sharan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court MJC No.2235 of 2013 dt.05-02-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2235 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1050 of 2006 =========================================================== AMAR NATH SHARAN, S/O LATE RAM NARAYAN SHARAN, RESIDENT OF A/ 95, HOUSING COLONY, KANKARBAGH POST AND POLICE STATION- KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA- 800020. .... .... PETITIONER/S
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR,
2. MR. ANUPAM KUMAR SUMAN, CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA- 6, SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA.
3. MR. ANUPAM KUMAR SUMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, PATNA- 6, SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA.
4. MR. HEERA LAL, CHIEF ENGINEER, BIHAR HOUSING BOARD, PATNA.
5. MR. PRABHUNATH CHAUDHARY, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, BIHAR HOUSING BOARD, PATNA.
6. MR. VIJAY KUMAR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BIHAR HOUSING BOARD, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA.
.... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Shree Niwas Madhwan, Advocate.
For the Housing Board : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Abhanjali, A.C. to G.P. 16. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-02-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 are present. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 submits that in compliance of the order dated 03.09.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1050 of 2006, which is under contempt, admissible dues amount has been paid to the petitioner as detailed in paragraph 5 of the show cause field on behalf of the opposite
Patna High Court MJC No.2235 of 2013 dt.05-02-2015 party nos. 2 to 6, regarding which, the information has also been communicated through memo no. 501 dated 12.09.2014 to the petitioner, which would appear from paragraph 5 of the supplementary show cause.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admissible dues amount has not been paid in accordance with law. Since the direction, under contempt, has already been complied, therefore, no further action is required to be taken. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. If the petitioner still aggrieve, he may take recourse in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U