← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/53/2016dismissed

M/S Nandita Construction Through Its Proprietor Raju Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-11-09Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.53 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 355 of 2015 ======================================================

1. M/s Nandita Construction through its proprietor Raju Kumar Singh son of Harender Singh resident of village Ratanua, P.O Bijauli, P.S Aurangabad District Aurangabad(Bihar).

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Planning Office, Aurangabad, namely B.K.Singh

3. The Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division ,Aurangabad namely Y.K. Patel.

4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Aurangabad namely A.K. Sinha

5. The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, Aurangabad namely Bikash Kumar

6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad namely Sarbadeb Singh .... .... Opp.Parties.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kr Singh No. 6 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zaki Haider AC to SC-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 09-11-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and AC to SC-9 for the State.

The application alleges wilful/deliberate disobedience/ disregard of the order dated 13.07.2015 passed in CWJC No. 355 of 2015(Annexure-1). The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- "After making some submissions counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to ventilate his grievance before the District Magistrate. If any such grievance is

Patna High Court MJC No.53 of 2016 (2) dt.09-11-2016 2/2 raised, I am sure the respondent concerned shall examine the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as quickly as possible.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty."

This Court does not find from the said order that any direction was issued to the respondents for compliance. There is no merit in the contempt application.

The contempt application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U