Patna High CourtMJC/2192/2013dismissed

Chandra Kishore Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-03Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra,Mr. Justice Ramesh Kumar Datta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2192 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10991 of 2012 ====================================================== Chandra Kishore Sharma S/O Jugeshwar Sharma Resident Of VillageSanjhaili, Police Station- Kadwa, District- Katihar, Presently Secretary Badhai Kalyan Manch, Prakhand- Kadwa, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rakesh, the Chief Election Officer, Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Manish Kumar, Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Bihar, Patna.

4. Mr. Birendra Lal Yadav, District Magistrate- Cum- Election Commissioner, Katihar.

5. Mr. Kavindra Nath Thakur, District Co- Operative Officer, Katihar.

6. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Block Development Officer- Cum- Election Officer, Kadwa, District- Katihar.

7. Mahesh Singh, Secretary Kadwa Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyoug Samiti Limited, Village- Chandpdur, Police Station- Kadwa, District- Katihar.

8. Lalit Bishwas, Chairman Kadwa Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samiti Limited, Chandpur, Police Station- Kadwa, District- Katihar. .... .... Opp.Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 03-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State.

The contempt application has been has been filed alleging flouting of the order dated 3.8.2012 of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10991 of 2012. By the said order this Court had merely deprecated that it is unfortunate that public interest litigation was lodged in order to extract a compromise outside the

Patna High Court MJC No.2192 of 2013 (2) dt.03-07-2015 2/2 Court which was not a healthy indication and after noting that the compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 8, this Court had disposed of the public interest litigation.

It is evident from the said order that no direction had been issued by this Court which was required to be complied by any one nor the matter had been disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the contempt application is dismissed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Anjana Mishra, J) S.Pandey/- U