Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through Additional Chief Secretary, Arunish Chawla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1472 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12784 of 2024 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Ram Prasad Lal Yadav, resident of Village- Rukmini Chamber Hotel Raj Kumar Lane, Exhibition Road, P.S. - Gandhi Maidan, P.O.- G.P.O., District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Arunish Chawla Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Arunish Chawla, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Municipal Commissioner, Animesh Kumar Parashar, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

4.

The Joint Municipal Commissioner (Establishment) Dr. Shashi Shekhar, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

5.

The Controller of Municipal Finance and Account Shri Ramashish Sharan Tiwari, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

6.

The Executive Officer, Shri Gangakant Thakur, Jalapurti Shakha, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P.-14 For the P.M.C.

:

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 18-03-2026 C.W.J.C. No. 12784 of 2024 was disposed of on 29th August, 2024, directing the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks from the date of the order mentioning his claim to the respondent no. 3 and if such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 shall disposed of the same within 60 days from the date of filing of the representation.

2. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation

Patna High Court MJC No.1472 of 2025(6) dt.18-03-2026 2/2 before the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 3 disposed of the said representation holding, inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled to get 2nd A.C.P.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner by filing the instant contempt application that the decision taken in the said representation is wrong and contrary to the law prevailing the issue.

4. This matter cannot be decided in the instant writ petition. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order of disposal of the representation, he is at liberty to challenge the matter in fresh writ petition.

5. The instant contempt application is, accordingly, decided against the petitioner.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) Jyoti Kumari/- U