← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/575/2018disposed

Ram Kishore Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2022-12-07The Chief Justice -3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.575 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15945 of 2009 ====================================================== Ram Kishore Prasad Singh, Son of Shiva Nandan Singh Resident of Village and Post Office- Katari, Police Station-Sheikhpura, District Sheikhpura, At Present Resident of Mohalla-Kailashpuri, Ward No.9, Ashirvas Bhawan, P.S.- Dumra, District-Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Sri Amrit Lal Meena, Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Commissioner, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna 3.

Sri Amrit Lal Meena Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Secretary, Road Construction Department of Bihar, Patna 4.

Sri Laxmi Narayan Das Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Engineer-inChief-Cum-Additional Commissioner-Cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 5.

Ranjan Kumar Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Engineer0n-Chief-CumSpecial Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Government of Bihar, Patna 6.

Ashok Kumar Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organizatin-II, North Bihar, Patna 7.

Vinod Kumar Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization Works, Circle, Darbhanga (North Bihar) 8.

Satyendra Singh Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Samastipur, DistrictSamastipur 9.

Anuradha Chandra Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Motihari, District Motihari 10.

Uma Shankar Prasad Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Jamui 11.

Ram Sakal Singh Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Bhagalpur 12.

The State of Jharkhand through Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Block Development Fund Officer, Tisari, District Giridih (Jharkhand) 13.

Sanjay Sinha Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Block Development officer, Dumra, District-Sitamarhi 14.

Manju Kumari Son of Not Known to the Petitioner, Block Development Officer, Parihar, District Sitamarhi ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Patna High Court MJC No.575 of 2018(11) dt.07-12-2022 2/3 Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 07-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This application is being filed for initiation of a contempt proceeding against the opposite parties, who deliberately and intentionally in spite of direction given by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 15945/2009, titled as Ram Kishore Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., has till date nor the disposed of the representation of the petitioner nor has paid any amount as claimed in the representation. This Court had simply directed the petitioner's representation to be considered and decided on expeditious basis. This is how the Court reads the order dated 23.12.2009:- "This writ application is disposed with observation that if the petitioner submits a representation, this Court expects the respondents to consider the same expeditiously. Any order passed by the authorities on such representation shall remain circumscribed by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining & anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115 in so far as the remedies of the petitioner against such order be concerned."

Noticeably, the respondents have taken a decision in

Patna High Court MJC No.575 of 2018(11) dt.07-12-2022 3/3 terms thereof. The representation stands considered and decided. Be it not to the liking of the petitioner. However, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any contempt, for the Court had neither determined nor adjudicated the petitioner's right or quantification of any amount.

As such, present application stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue independently in accordance with law.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) Sujit/Ashwini U