Arti Kumari @ Nibha v. The Bihar School Examination Board, Through Its Chairman And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2214 of 2016 In LPA 1463 of 2013 ====================================================== Arti Kumari @ Nibha, wife of Sri Chitranjan Pandey, D/o-Late Sugandh Upadhya, resident of Mohalla-Hanuman Nagar, P.S.-Patrakar Nagar, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Chairman, Mr. Anand Kishor, Sinha Library Road, Patna-17.
2. The Secretary, Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna-17.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Mr. Sachindra Kumar, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna-17.
4. The Law Officer, Mr. Ragwendra Tiwari, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna-17. ... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : M/s Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Sandhya Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv. For the Board : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 23-02-2017 While disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal, this Court observed that upon representation being filed by the appellant, the Chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter in short as 'Board') should consider the same and pass order within one month. The Chairman of the Board passed the order, this contempt application was filed.
Learned counsel for the Board informs the Court that the Chairman has passed the reasoned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that the claim has been rejected
Patna High Court MJC No.2214 of 2016 (03) dt.23-02-2017 - 2 - contrary to the orders of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. In our view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Chairman of the Board, he has remedy elsewhere but the contempt application is not the remedy.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Trivedi/- U