Sitamarhi Lok Sewa Sansthan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6593 of 2012 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11194 of 2012 =========================================================== Sitamarhi Lok Sewa Sansthan, having its registered office at Village & PO Jafarpur, P.S. Belsand, Distt. Sitamarhi, through its Secretary, Sufal Jha. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Mr. A.K. Sinha, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna,

2. The Bihar State Health Society, Bihar, Patna through its Executive Director, namely, Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

3. The District Health Society, Sitmarhi, through its Secretary, Civil Surgeoncum-Chief Medical Officer, Sitamarhi namely Dr. Om Prakash Panjiyar,

4. Mr. Ashwani Dattatreya Thakre, District Magistrate - cum - Adhyaksha, District Health Society, Sitmarhi.

.... .... Opposite Parties / Contemnors.

=========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Kislay and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, AC to PAAG 2. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-03-2017 The Writ Application filed by the petitioner was for payment of the bills raised by the petitioner for organizing the Health Camps for Children in the district of Sitamarhi. This Court directed the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the work done and to make payment of the admissible amount along with the interest.

2. In terms of such an order, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected on 16.09.2014 (Annexure 'H'). Since the claim of the petitioner has been examined and rejected by the Opposite Party no. 3, the question as to whether, the petitioner is

Patna High Court MJC No.6593 of 2012 dt.06-03-2017 2/2 entitled to any amount for the work done or not is a disputed fact. Such fact cannot be examined in the contempt petition. The specific order passed by the learned Single Bench is to consider the claim of the petitioner. Such claim having been considered, the order passed has been complied.

3. Consequently, the present contempt petition is rendered infructuous as the order has been complied with.

4. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy, as may be available to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) Dilip/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date