Mukti Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.502 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12749 of 2015 ====================================================== Mukti Prasad Singh, S/o late Sadhu Sharan Singh, Vill + P.O. Nayagaon P.S. Sultanganj Bhagalpur. Also Elected Chairman of Nayagaon Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Anjani Kumar Singh, the Chief Secretary State of Bihar, Patna.

3. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, the Registrar, Co-operative Department, Patna, Bihar.

4. Arvind Kumar Singh, the Managing Director Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Son Bhawan, Patna.

5. Adesh Titremare District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

6. Lalan Sharma, District Co-operative Officer, Bhagalpur.

7. Anil Kumar, District Manager Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Bhagalpur.

8. Sridhar Pandey Circle Officer Sultanganj Bhagalpur.

9. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Block Co-operative Officer Sultanganj Bhagalpur.

10. Chirravuri Viswanath, Secretary Ministry of Food Consumer Govt. of India. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-10 For the Corporation : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 09-01-2019 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State and Corporation are present.

Vide judgment and order passed in CWJC No.12749 of 2015, certain directions were issued to the respondentCorporation. The Corporation went in appeal against the judgment and order of this Court giving rise to LPA No.427 of 2018 and the Division Bench vide judgment and order passed in the batch of appeals arising from LPA No.881 of 2016 including

Patna High Court MJC No.502 of 2016(5) dt.09-01-2019 2/2 the appeal arising from the order which is subject matter of this proceeding, has proceeded to modify the judgment and order of this Court with further direction to constitute a committee. In view of the modification so directed by the Division Bench, the order of this Court stands merged with the order of the Division Bench and in case the writ petitioner feels aggrieved on any issue, his contempt remedy would lie elsewhere and not before this Court. If so advised, he can take recourse thereto.

With the observation above, the contempt application is disposed of .

(Jyoti Saran, J) skpathak/- U