Manager Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2838 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 655 of 2014 =========================================================== Manager Singh, Son of Late Ramashray Singh, Resident of Village + Post- Berath, P.S. Chouri, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operative, Government Of Bihar, Patna, namely, Mr. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary.

2. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited, Budh Marg, Patna through its Managing Director, namely, Mr. C. Ashok Bardhan.

3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna, namely, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh.

4. The Director (Personnel), Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna, namely, Mr. Bijay Singh.

5. The Area Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Bhojpur at Ara, namely, Mr. Rajeshwar Pd. Singh.

6. The Branch Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Sandesh, District - Bhojpur, Ara, namely, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the O.P. Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Manglam, AC to SC-24 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-01-2018 From the petitioner's own showing, it is clear that the petitioners were directed to file an application and the Central Registrar of Multi-State Cooperative Society was directed to examine the dispute and take a decision. Annexure 2 is the order passed by the Registrar, disposing of the dispute and consequently the Bank has also passed an order, Annexure 3.

That being so, in this contempt application, no further

Patna High Court MJC No.2838 of 2016 dt.24-01-2018 2/2 indulgence is required.

In case the petitioner feels that the action taken is not in accordance with law, liberty shall be available to the petitioner to challenge it, but on the grounds canvassed in the application, now it is not a fit case where action for contempt can be initiated. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date25-01-2018 Transmission Date