← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/2679/2019disposed

Abhishek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-18Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2679 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16477 of 2017 ====================================================== Abhishek Kumar, Son of Amrendra Kumar, Resident of Village- Chakia, P.O.- Usari, P.S.- Mehandia, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Vinay Kumar The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Pravin Thakur The Engineer In Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna.

4.

Ashok Mishra The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department , Bihar, Patna. 5.

Arvind Kumar The Suprintending Engineer, Rural Works Department , Works Circle, Patna.

6.

Rameshwar Choudhary The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department , Work Division, Paliganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi ( AAG 6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-10-2019 It appears that a show cause on behalf of the opposite party no.3 duly sworn on 18.09.2019 has been prepared but the same does not appear to have been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that he will ensure that the said affidavit is filed in the Registry for purpose of record by Monday (21.10.2019).

This Court has, however, perused the copy of the show cause which has been made available by learned counsel for the State. In paragraph 9 thereof it has been stated that after

Patna High Court MJC No.2679 of 2019(5) dt.18-10-2019 2/2 the previous order passed by this Court on 30.08.2019 the opposite parties have considered the matter afresh and this time the name of the petitioner has been excluded from the debar list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh order of debarment has been passed against the petitioner, it, however, appears that the same is for a different cause of action. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to seek his remedy against the said debarment in an appropriate proceeding. Taking note of the above developments, this application is consigned to records.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U