← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/128/2016dismissed

Nawal Kishore Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Bhagalpur Division Namely Mr. R.N.Changhtu And ORS

2016-08-10Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.128 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4703 of 2009 ======================================================

1. Nawal Kishore Prasad Son of Bhubneshwar Prasad Resident of village - Naya Chak, P.O. Bhagalpur, P.S. Ishak Chak, District - Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner Bhagalpur Division Namely Mr. R.N.Changhtu

2. Mr. Dr. Nilesh Debre, the Collector, Banka Collector, Banka

3. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the Anchal Adhikari, Katoria Anchal, Banka

4. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the Circle officer, Katoria Anchal, Banka

5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad For the Accountant General : Mr. Shankar Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10-08-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, G.P-14 for the State Mr. Shankar Kumar for the Accountant General is also present.

The application alleges wilful/disobedience of the order dated 02.02.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4703 of 2009 (Annexure-1), by the opposite party. The petitioner, under the said order, was required to file a representation for payment of his dues within 5 weeks, whereafter the respondent was required to examine the claim of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

Patna High Court MJC No.128 of 2016 (2) dt.10-08-2016 2/2 On reading the averment made in paragraph 4 and annexure-2 enclosed thereto, it appears that such a representation was filed by the petitioner on 14.6.2012. The petitioner himself did not comply with the order of this court. The contempt application has been lodged in this court on 12.1.2016. Mr. Prasad referring to the provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, has rightly submitted that the application is barred by limitation and is fit to be rejected. In my view, the present contempt application has no merit. It has been filed belatedly. The petitioner himself was negligent.

The application is dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) siddharth/- U