Makeshwar Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3219 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19245 of 2014 ====================================================== Makeshwar Kumar Sinha S/o Late Brij Nandan Prasad R/o House No.- B/6, Mohalla- Tahir Lane, Magadh- Vihar Police Station- Gardanibagh and District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua and Anr null null ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, Ac to AAG 5, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The present contempt application has been filed alleging violation of order dated 06.05.2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 19245 of 2014.

The learned counsel for the State, at the outset, submits that the order dated 06.05.2016 has been complied and further draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 06.05.2016, wherein it has been recorded - 'Heard learned counsel for the parties. Matter of accounting is not a matter of adjudication, which is required to be done by the Court. The petitioner is free to sit down with the authority to understand the accounting based on which the payment of unutilized leave has

Patna High Court MJC No.3219 of 2018(5) dt.25-02-2023 2/2 been made'.

The learned counsel thus submits that there was no positive direction by this Court rather the Court had merely asked the petitioner to sit with the authority to understand the accounting, it is next submitted that whatever dues were there of the petitioner that has been paid, as it has been specifically stated at Para-7 and 9 of the show cause filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the contempt application.

Thus, the contempt application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) shivam/- U