Durga Prasad Jha v. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Developmen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3026 of 2016 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 274 of 2012 ====================================================== Durga Prasad Jha, son of Late Chamak Lal Jha, resident of village - Jhakhra, P.O. Kadrachak, P.S. Shambhuganj District - Banka. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Mr. D.S. Gangwar, I.A.S.

2. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Boring Canal Road, Patna namely Mr. P.N. Mishra.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Board, Boring Canal Road, Pana namely Mr. M.K. Sinha.

4. The District Education officer, Banka, namely Md. A. Mokit. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga10 Rajeshwar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 4.

11-09-2018 Let the defects, as pointed out by office, be ignored.

This application has been preferred alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 06.08.2014 passed in MJC No. 274/2012.

On reading of the order dated 06.08.2014, it appears that earlier the petitioner had moved this court in the contempt jurisdiction wherein this court had taken a view that the opposite parties cannot held guilty of deliberate disobedience of the order of this court. It is submitted that while disposing of the said contempt

Patna High Court MJC No.3026 of 2016 (4) dt.11-09-2018 application this court observed that since the District Education Officer had asked for guidelines from the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, he must reply to it and see to it that the matter is resolved within three months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this contempt application has become infructuous as the petitioner has already been paid his due amount. However, at the same time, he seeks liberty to agitate his any other claim with the opposite parties.

This contempt application is therefore disposed off as having become infructuous.

As regards the claim, if any, it is for the petitioner to seek redressal for the same in accordance with law. This court will not make any observation with regard to any such claim sitting in its contempt jurisdiction.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U