← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/3525/2018disposed

Nand Lal Gupta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-02-01Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3525 of 2018 ====================================================== Nand Lal Gupta son of Suresh Sah, Resident of Village- Amara Talab, P.O.- Karwandia, Police Station- Sasaram (M), District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Mr. Tripurari Sharan, the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. S. Kumara Sammy, The Divisional Forest Officer cum Authorized Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

4. Mr. Uday Narayan, the Forest Range Officer Tilauthu, Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-02-2019 A show cause has been filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2. It has now been pointed out that vide order dated 18.08.2017 the confiscation proceeding had already been finalized and the said order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter no. 2649 dated 25.08.2017.

This Court finds that the aforementioned facts were not brought to the notice of this Court when the Cr.W.J.C. No. 2297 of 2017 was disposed of on 18.07.2018.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this contempt application cannot proceed. The petitioner will have liberty to challenge the order passed in the confiscation proceeding before an appropriate forum.

Patna High Court MJC No.3525 of 2018(3) dt.01-02-2019 2/2 This application is disposed off accordingly. If any question of limitation will arise, the same shall be considered keeping in mind that the petitioner had approached this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 2297 of 2017 and at the time of disposal of the same the Court was not informed about the conclusion of the confiscation proceeding. Even with the show cause no proof of dispatch of the order passed in the confiscation proceeding has been brought on the record. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-ved U