Sheikh Mohammad Qasim v. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Urban Development Department Govt. Of Bihar Namely Amreet Lal M

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.567 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1859 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Sheikh Mohammad Qasim, son of Late Sheikh Abdul Qayum, resident of Mohalla Rukunpura, Bailey road, Police Station- Rukanpura, Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna namely Amreet Lal Meena.

2. The Patna Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna namely Sri Jai Singh.

3. Sri Jai Singh, Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok, Patna.

4. Sri Murli Prasad Singh, the Vigilance Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna.

5. Sri Lakhidra Paswan, the Executive Officer, Phulwari Nagar Parishad, Phulwari, Patna.

6. Ali Asder, son of Late Ali Yusuf, Director Of M/S Realtors Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Samiridhi Commercial Centre, 3 rd Floor, S.P. Verma Road, Patna- 800001.

.... .... Opp. Parties/Contemnors.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan For the State : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman AC to SC-11 For the PMC : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate. For the O.P.No.5 : Mr. Nari Suzza, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 07-09-2016 Heard the parties.

A show cause on behalf of the concerned opposite parties is filed.

The application alleges wilful/deliberate disobedience/disregard of the order dated 18.04.2014 passed in CWJC No. 1859 of 2014 (Annexure-1) at the hands of opposite

Patna High Court MJC No.567 of 2016 (3) dt.07-09-2016 2/2 party no.5 (Executive Officer, Phulwari Nagar Parishad). Along with the show cause, the order disposing of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-A) has been enclosed. Mr. Ranjan made diverse submissions to criticize the said order. Regrettably, such consideration cannot be made in the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. It will be open to the petitioner to agitate his grievance before the appropriate authority/forum in accordance with law. Having found that the opposite party no.5 has already carried out the order/direction of the Court, the present contempt petition does not merit further persuasion. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U