← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/4675/2013dismissed

Lal Bahadur Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-18Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court MJC No.4675 of 2013 (7) dt.18-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4675 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5530 of 2012 ====================================================== Lal Bahadur Singh son of late Raghunath Singh resident of Mohalla Bangali Tola, Ram Nagar Road, Chiraiyatand, Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna.

3. Mr. Jiwaneshwar Rajak, the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhavan, Patna.

4. Mr. Om Prakash Ambedkar, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Dehri.

5. Mr. Sidheshwar Prasad Sahu, the Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Buxar.

6. Mr. Arshad Firoz The Treasury Officer, Buxar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bihari Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amar Nath Deo ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

A show cause has been filed in which it has been contended that the order of this court is complied with and an amount of Rs. 32, 023/- has been paid to the petitioner in accordance with the direction passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the amount has been paid, no interest has been paid on the same for the delayed payment.

Patna High Court MJC No.4675 of 2013 (7) dt.18-04-2017 After perusal of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5530 of 2012, it appears that there is no specific direction for payment of interest. Accordingly, such prayer is not tenable under contempt jurisdiction.

In view of the above, this Court need not proceed further in the matter. The contempt application stands disposed of. (Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/- U