Uday Chandra Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.404 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4390 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Uday Chandra Choudhary S/o Late Kameshwar Choudhary, R/o village Barhouna, P.S.- Vidyapati Nagar, District Samastipur as Sewayat of Shri 108 Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji Maharaj, Mathurapur, Thakurbari, District Khagaria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Director, Welfare Department , Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Shri H.K. Sharma , the Director of Welfare Department , Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Commissioner, Munger Division, District Munger.

4. Shri Rajeev Raushan, the District Magistrate cum Collector, Khagaria.

5. Shri Abdul Wahab Ansari, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

6. Shri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, the District Welfare Officer, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

7. Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, the Anchaladhikari, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

8. Shri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, the Anchaladhikari, Khagaria, District Khagaria.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 16-11-2016 Heard Mr. Mishra for the petitioner and A.C. to PAAG-2 for the State.

The present application alleges willful/deliberate disobedience/disregard of the order dated 09.04.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4390 of 2014 (Annexure-1) whereby the Court, while disposing of the application, directed the District Magistrate to dispose of the representation in accordance with law, if not

Patna High Court MJC No.404 of 2015 (4) dt.16-11-2016 2/2 already disposed of.

A show cause, after service, is filed. Counsel for the State draws attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 4 and Annexure-B from perusal whereof it appears the representation has been disposed of by a reasoned order passed by the District Magistrate.

Mr. Mishra made some submissions to challenge the correctness thereof. Regrettably, the validity of the order cannot be examined in the contempt jurisdiction. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the order, he may take recourse as available in law.

The order of this Court having been complied with, the application merits to be dismissed. I order accordingly. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/- U