Ghanshyam Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.1382 of 2017 (3) dt.20-09-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1382 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22534 of 2014 ====================================================== Ghanshyam Jha, son of late Dr. Kapileshwar Jha, resident of Mohalla 20/N Professor Colony, PS- Patrakar Nagar in the District of Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Smt. Harjot Kaur Bamhrah, wife of note known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

Sri Arun Prakash, son of not known to the petitioner, Additional Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

Sri Satish Kumar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (post is vacant since long).

6.

Sri Satish Kumar Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7.

Sri Chandrashekhar Mandal, son of not known to the petitioner, Section Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, AAG- 8 For the Department of Mines : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Let the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be kept on record.

Heard the parties.

Though the petitioner complains of non-compliance of the order of this Court passed on the writ petition in so far as it allowed consequential reliefs to the petitioner but the petitioner has failed to draw the attention of the opposite parties on the obligation so cast on them.

In the circumstances discussed, this is a misconceived contempt application which is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U