S.M. Naiyer Imam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2140 of 2025 In Letters Patent Appeal No.411 of 2014 ====================================================== S.M. Naiyer Imam S/o- Late S.M. Zareef, Founder Secretary Rauf Muslim Jamia Society and its Institution, R/o- Mohalla- Quazina, Banipur, Basuham, P.S- Bahera, District- Darbhanga, Presently residing at 101B, Hyteck castle apartment, Road-3 New Patliputra Colony, P.S- Patliputra, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Shri Rajnish Kumar Singh, I.G. Registration, Government of Bihar Patna. 3.

Prof. Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan University, Darbhanga.

4.

Dr. Divya Rani Hansda, Registrar, Lalit Narayan University, Darbhanga. 5.

Sri Anand Kishor, Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 6.

Sri Pramod Kumar, Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 7.

Sri Madan Singh Yadav, Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), G-7, Sector-10 Dwaraka, New Delhi-110075.

8.

S.M Ali Imam S/o- Late S.M Zareef, R/o- Bahera, P.S- Bahera, DistrictDarbhanga. 9.

S.M Zafar Imam S/o- Late S.M Zareef, R/o- Bahera, P.S- Bahera, DistrictDarbhanga. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pratap Sharma, Advocate For the LNMU :

Mr.Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate For the NCTE :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.P.Kr.Sah, AC to GA-5 :

Mr.Rakesh Kr. Ranjan, AC to GA-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 22-01-2026 The present contempt application has been preferred alleging non-compliance of the order dated 04.08.2014 passed

Patna High Court MJC No.2140 of 2025(4) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 in L.P.A. No. 411 of 2014.

2. During the course of hearing, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to which part of the aforesaid order had not been complied with. Learned counsel, however was unable to point out any specific direction which has not been complied with.

3. We have perused the order dated 04.08.2014 passed in LPA No. 411 of 2014 and find that no specific direction had been issued in favour of the petitioner, which can be said to have not been complied with by the respondents. As such, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out.

4. Accordingly, the present contempt application stands dismissed.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, J) ( Ritesh Kumar, J) vinita/sujit U