Md. Sultan Ansari v. The Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation Through Its Mayor At Bhagalpur Namely Smt. Seema Saha And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2437 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2288 of 2009 ====================================================== Md. Sultan Ansari son of Late Md. Mansoor Ansari, Resident of VillageLodipur, P.S.- Lodipur, District- Bhagalpur, retired vaccinator, in the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation through its Mayor at Bhagalpur namely Smt. Seema Saha

2. The Municipal Commissioner, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, Bhagalpur namely Mr. Amit Kumar.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-01-2019 Heard Sri Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties on an allegation of wilful disobedience to an order dated 30.03.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2288 of 2009. By the said order, the writ petition, with consent of parties, was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation. It was indicated that if opposite party no. 2 proposes to reject the claim of the petitioner, he was required to pass a reasoned order. After filing of the present petition, opposite parties

Patna High Court MJC No.2437 of 2017(6) dt.16-01-2019 2/2 have appeared and filed show-cause and in the show-cause, a stand has been taken that in compliance of the order of the writ court, a reasoned order has been passed, which has been brought on record as Annexure A/1 to the show-cause.

Sri Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to Annexure A/1, submits that it is not proper compliance of the order of the writ court and the claim of the petitioner has incorrectly been rejected without looking into the actual claim of the petitioner. Fact remains that in compliance with order of the writ court, opposite party no. 2 has already passed a reasoned order. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to proceed with the matter.

The contempt petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U