Raj Nandan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.957 of 2013 dt.24-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.957 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12340 of 2011 =========================================================== RAJ NANDAN PRASAD, S/O RUPLAL YADAV R/O VILLAGE - PACHIWARI, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT - JEHANABAD .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA

2. DISTRICT OFFICER, JEHANABAD NAMELY SRI BALA MURUGAN D. 3.

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, JEHANABAD NAMELY SRI GAYASUDDIN

4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ( LITRACY ), JEHANABAD NAMELY SRI SULTAN AHMAD 5.

BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT - JEHANABAD NAMELY SRI YOGENDRA KUMAR

6. MUKHIA BHAIKH GRAM PANCHAYAT MAKHDUMPUR NAMELY SRI SIYARAM PRASAD

7. SUBHASH CHANDRA ROY S/O LATE JAGDEO ROY R/O PRABHAT NAGAR, P.S. MAKHDUMPUR, DISTRICT - JEHANABAD .... .... OPPOSITE PARTIES/S =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. SANTOSH CHANDRA BHASKAR For the Respondent/s : Mr. ROY SHIVAJI NATH AAG3 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to A,A.G.3 appearing for the State.

The present contempt application has been filed for noncompliance of the order dated 30.08.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12340 of 2012 whereunder the aforesaid writ application was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to decide

Patna High Court MJC No.957 of 2013 dt.24-04-2015 the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.

Learned A.C. to A.A.G-3 submits that in compliance of the order of the writ Court, the Block Development, Makhdumpur, has decided the representation of the petitioner refusing his claim by Annexure 7, which would appear from the show cause dated 08.07.2013 and the same has also been communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 97 dated 25.01.2013.

Since the order, under contempt, has been complied with by the concerned opposite parties, therefore, no further action is required. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. If the petitioner feels any grievance, he may take recourse in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U