Parmanand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1774 of 2016 ====================================================== Parmanand Yadav S/o Late Gulabi Prasad Yadav, resident of VillageKhawa, P.S. & District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Pankaj Kumar, at present working as the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. Sri Manoranjan Kumar Sinha son of not known to the petitioner, at present working as the Engineer-in-Chief- cum-Addl. Commissioner-cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Vinay Kumar Son of name not known to the petitoner at present working as the secretary, Rural works Department, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Sri Raj Kumar Lal Son of not known to the petitioner at present working as the Chief Engineer-III, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

5. Sri Om Prakash Manjhi son of not known to the petitioner at present working as the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Muzaffarpur.

6. Sri Raghubir Prasad son of name not known to the petitioner at present working as the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Hajipur.

7. Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad Singh son of name not known to the petitioner, the then Superintending Engineer-cum-Inquiry Officer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-08-2018 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State submits that on remission of the matter back to the Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Road Construction Department, now the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been disposed off vide speaking order as

Patna High Court MJC No.1774 of 2016 (2) dt.14-08-2018 contained in Annexure-A brought on record with the show cause, a copy of which was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 10.08.2016.

This Court has perused the order as contained in Annexure-A. It is a speaking order and has been communicated vide memo no.3490 dated 24.05.2016 to the petitioner i.e. immediately after filing of the present contempt application. The statement made in the show cause has not been controverted over about two years.

The application has, thus, become infructuous and is disposed off accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U