Ramyati Kumari v. Mr. Ayaz Khan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1572 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9120 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

Ramyati Kumari W/o Sri Surya Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Barhag, P.S.- Bind, District- Nalanda.

2.

Rita Devi W/o Naresh Prasad Resident of Village and Post- Sarbahdi, P.S.- Manpur, District- Nalanda.

3.

Usha Devi W/o Mahendra Prasad Resident of Village- Bhenda, P.O.- Sonsa, P.S.- Rahui, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Mr. Ayaz Khan son of not known the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. Ayaz Khan, son of not known Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Mr. Kumar Ravi Son of not known Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4.

Mr. Shashank Subhankar, Son of not known District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

5.

Vineet Kumar Sinha, Son of not known State Bank of India through its Branch Manager at Biharsharif, Nalanda.

6.

Vineet Kumar Sinha, Son of not known Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhirendra Kumar, Adv, For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Apurv Harsh, adv.

Ms. Aditi Sahay, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH) 01-05-2025 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that in compliance of the order of this court dated 04.02.2022 passed in CWJC No. 9120 of 2021, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna has already passed

Patna High Court MJC No.1572 of 2022(5) dt.01-05-2025 2/2 reasoned orders dated 30.08.2022 qua the petitioners, whereafter the amount deposited by the petitioners, which was not utilized in registration, has been returned back in their respective accounts through the mode of C.F.M.S. on 05.09.2022 after deducting 10% of the deposited amount in accordance with law. Hence, it is submitted that the order of this court, disobedience whereof has been complained of has stood complied with.

2. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to agitate their subsisting grievances, if any in accordance with law. It is needless to state that in case law so permits, no liberty is required to avail the remedies provided therein.

3. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) ( Shailendra Singh, J) Rajiv/-BKS U