Bhupal Pandit v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.105 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18743 of 2012 =================================================== Bhupal Pandit Son of Late Narain Pandit resident of Mohalla : Chandi Asthan, P.S. : Kotwali, District : Munger. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Amrit Lal Meena, The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Liyan Kunga, son of not known the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.

4. Mr. Om Prakash Manda son of not known the Deputy Collector (Establishment), Munger.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha son of not known the Municipal Commissioner, Munger Municipal Corporation, Munger.

6. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha son of not known the District Magistrate, Munger.

.... .... Respondents =================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pathak =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 5.

17-09-2018 While learned counsel representing the Munger Municipal Corporation submits that the admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner has already been paid as per direction of this court, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that a sum of Rs. 1,02,720/- has been wrongly deducted from the admissible amount payable to the petitioner.

On the last date the matter was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the Corporation to seek instruction as regards the deduction of Rs.

Patna High Court MJC No.105 of 2016 (5) dt.17-09-2018 1,02,720.00.

Today the court is being informed by learned counsel that the said deduction is on account of certain advances which the petitioner had received for carrying out certain works but for which the adjustment bills were not submitted to the full extent.

In the nature of the controversies even though learned counsel for the petitioner calls upon this court to grant some time to contest this issue, this court is of the considered view that such issues which have not been decided by the learned writ court cannot be taken up for consideration in the contempt jurisdiction. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek his remedy as against the deductions in accordance with law.

This Contempt Application stands disposed off, accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U