Raj Narayan Akela v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4794 of 2013 ====================================================== Raj Narayan Akela, S/O Late Chandrika Rai, Resident Of VillageMubarakpur, P.O- Danapur, P.S- Danapur, District- Patna Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through A.K.Sinha, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,, Old Secretariat, Patna(Bihar).

2.

Dr. N. Shrawan, the District Magistrate, District- Patna Bihar 3.

Dr. Shobha Agrawal, the Block Development Officer, Danapur Block, Patna Bihar 4.

Kumar Kundan Lal, the Circle Officer, Danapur, Circle, Patna Bihar 6.

Mahendra Prasad Singh, the Executive Officer, Danapur Municipality Patna ( Bihar) 7.

Aunish Kumar Singh, the Sub Divisional Officer, Danapur Subdivision, Patna (Bihar) 8.

Ram Prawesh Singh, the Head Master, Budhwa Primary School, Mubarakpur, Danapur Patna ( Bihar) 11.

Keshaw Prasad, the District Program Officer (Establishment), Patna ( Bihar) 12.

____________ the Planning Director, Bihar Rural Construction Development Corporation Limited, Patna(Bihar). ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Fulman Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay, GA-5 Mr. Rakesh Kumr Ranjan, AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 18-09-2025 The present contempt application has been filed with respect to the order dated 05.03.2013 passed in CWJC No. 4794 of 2013, wherein the following observation was made:

Patna High Court MJC No.2592 of 2013(5) dt.18-09-2025 2/2 "In the opinion of this Court, it would suffice, if a direction is given to the District Magistrate, Patna (respondent no. 2) to dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 29.08.2012 as contained in Annexure-1 Series to the writ petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible."

2. A show cause dated 18.09.2025 has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

3. It is submitted that the opposite parties have already disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner by order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure-R/C to the show cause).

4. Considering the facts, we find that no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt application. Accordingly, the contempt application stands disposed of. (Sudhir Singh, J) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Sujit/- U