Ram Naresh Ray, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1571 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14993 of 2019 ====================================================== Ram Naresh Ray, S/o Ram Autar Mahto, Resident of Village Parmanadpur, P.O. Ladaura Pakari, District Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar.

2.

Sanjeev Hans, the Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Chanchal Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

HP Srinivas, the Commissioner, Darbhanga.

5.

Thiyagrajan SM, The Collector Darbhanga-cum Chairman District Level Selection Committee, Darbhanga.

6.

Arun Kumar Chodhary, the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

7.

Timir Kanti Bhaduri, the Chief Engineer, Central Design Research and Quality Control, Department of Water Resources, Office at Anisabad, Patna. 8.

Umesh Prasad Singh, the Superintending Engineer, Quality Control, Irrigation Creation Circle, Office at Anisabad, District Patna. 9.

Arun Kumar Choudhary, the Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Irrigation Creation Division, Darbhanga.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amarendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar (Gp 4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 As directed by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2019, the Collector, Darbhanga-cum-Chairman, District Level Selection Committee, Darbhanga has passed an order rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Amrendra Narayan, learned Advocate

Patna High Court MJC No.1571 of 2021(3) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 submits that the rejection order is based on the same grounds on which the challenge was made initially in the writ petition. As such, this cannot be called compliance of the order passed by this Court.

3. Since the direction to the concerned respondent was to pass an order in accordance with law, which order has been passed, no contempt lies against the concerned respondent.

4. Should the petitioner so desire, he may challenge the aforesaid order on merits before the appropriate forum.

5. The contempt petition is thus disposed of accordingly.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U