Patna High CourtMJC/3975/2016dismissed

Parmanand Mistry And ORS v. Anjani Kumar Singh Chief Secretary, Old Secretariate, Bihar And ORS

2018-09-07Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3975 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11074 of 2006 ======================================================

1. Parmanand Mistry Son of Rampati Mistri, resident of Village + P.O. - Budhta Via Kinjer, District- Jehanabad.

2. Ashok Prasad Yadav son of Late Ganauri Praad, Resident of VillageBarki Bhavanpura, Police Station- Ghoshi, District- Gaya.

3. Siaram Prasad Son of Late Bhagirath Mahto. Resident of Mohalla- Didhi Talab, Police Station- Motiben Bagicha, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Anjani Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary, Old Secretariate, Bihar, Patna.

2. Gopal Mira, The Commissioner/Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

3. Sanjay Kumar Singh, The Director, Labour Employment and Training, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

4. Kumar Ravi, District Magistrate/Collector, Gaya.

5. Raj Kumar Sinha, The Additional Collector, District Nazarat, Gaya.

6. Ijtaba Hussain, The Deputy Collector, Nazarat, Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi-AAG10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 07-09-2018 Annexure-F to the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 shows that the order passed by the learned Writ Court has been complied with by passing a reasoned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the order, as contained in Annexure-F, is not a proper compliance of the order of the learned Writ Court, but after going through the same, this Court does not find any reason to proceed

Patna High Court MJC No.3975 of 2016 (2) dt.07-09-2018 with the contempt application because doing so would require going into the merits of the contention which this Court is not willing to do.

The application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said Annexure-F to the show cause, if so advised, in an appropriate proceeding.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U