Parvati Devi And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1969 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15154 of 2010 ======================================================

1. Parvati Devi, Secretary, Madhu Self Help Group, Fisheries, Ekma, Vill.- Ekma, P.S.- Hathuri, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

2. Dukhani Devi, Secretary, Ramari Self Help Group, Fisheries, Ekma, Vill.- Ekma, P.S.- Hathuri, Distt.- Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anupam Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the then CollectorCum-Chairperson of District Disaster Management Authority, Muzaffarpur

3. Subhash Chand Jha, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Additional Collector, Land Reform, Muzaffarpur

4. Subhash Chand Jha, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Chief Executive Officer, District Disaster Management Authority, Muzaffarpur

5. Sunil Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner, the then SubDivisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur

6. Naimuddin, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Block Development Officer, Aurai Block, Muzaffarpur

7. Jahagir, son of not known to the petitioner, Industries Extension Officer, Aurai, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

8. Dilip Ranjan, son of not known to the petitioner, the then Branch Manager, United Bank Of India, Bedoul Asli Branch, Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Prashant Kumar, AC to S.C.-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

It appears from the show cause that the petitioners' case was considered and in view of the fact that they have availed the benefit from the Bank by way of loan, the authority in the

Patna High Court MJC No.1969 of 2015 (4) dt.29-03-2018 2/2 State has not considered their case, though the said order has not been communicated to the petitioners.

So far as the Bank is concerned, the petitioners have not given the representation before the Bank after the order passed by this Court in the writ application, so as to enable this Court to initiate contempt proceedings.

The present contempt application is, thus, disposed of as infructuous and the petitioners are granted liberty to pursue the matter before the concerned Bank in accordance with the order passed by this Court, which shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U