Bhagya Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Mr. Amrit Lal Meena Urban Development Department
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.491 of 2016 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5474 of 2012 ====================================================== Bhagya Narayan Yadav, S/o Late Bhatu Prasad Yadav, Resident of MuhallaBhabha Colony, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. -New Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Mr. Amrit Lal Meena, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. Mr. Jay Singh, I.A.S., the Principal Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna.
3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, the Executive Officer, Patna City Circle, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Sri Shanti Pratap For the Opposite Parties :
A.C. to G.A. No. 1 Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 Heard Sri Shanti Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to G.A. No. 1 as well as Sri Ranjit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation [ hereinafter referred to as the "P.MC."]. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties primarily on an allegation of willful disobedience to an order dated - 15.07.2014 passed in M.J.C. No. 5474 of 2012. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite disposal of L.P.A. No. 960 of 2007 the Corporation is not taking any steps for payment. However, on going through
Patna High Court MJC No.491 of 2016(3) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 the order it appears that contempt petition which was earlier filed stood disposed of on 15.07.2014 however while disposing of it was observed that the Court expects that after disposal of L.P.A. No. 960 of 2007 the Corporation will take immediate steps. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that after disposal of L.P.A. No. 960 of 2007 the admissible amount of Rs. 88,871/- has already been paid to the petitioner. In view of the facts disclosed in paragraph 7 of the show cause, of- course learned counsel for the petitioner disputes that some more amount is required to be paid, the Court is of the opinion that in contempt jurisdiction it would be difficult for this court to examine such claim. The contempt petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U