Birendra Kumar Singh,Advocate v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Pankaj Kumar The Principal Secretary Food And Consumer Protection De

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.780 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10203 of 2014 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Son of Late Krishna Ballabh Singh, resident of Village- Jhikatia, P.O.- Maigra, P.S- Imamganj, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Sri Pankaj Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. Sri Kumar Ravi, the District Magistrate, Gaya

3. Sri Jyoti Kumar, the S.D.O., Sherghati, District- Gaya.

4. Sri Nand Kishore, the Block Development Officer, Imamganj, DistrictGaya.

5. Sri Shambhu Mandal, the Circle Officer, Imamganj, District- Gaya

6. Sri Saroj Kumar, the Block Agriculture Officer, Imamganj, DistrictGaya

7. Sri Abhay, Block Officer, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Marketing Officer), Imamganj, District- Gaya .... .... Opp.Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh,Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay, GA-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) 11-03-2016 The application is for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for not complying with the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5th of January, 2015. By the said order the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that in case the petitioner approaches any purchase centre for sale of the paddy in the current or coming season, the authorities shall purchase the same

Patna High Court MJC No.780 of 2016 (2) dt.11-03-2016 2/2 at the minimum support price.

Learned counsel for the opposite party points out that the paddy was purchased in the previous year as well as in the current year. It is further pointed out that as and when the petitioner offers the paddy for sale the same shall be considered for purchase at the minimum support price.

In view of the said fact, we do not find any reason to initiate proceeding for violation of the order as alleged by the petitioner. The order cannot be used to haul the respondents for purchase of paddy year after year.

There is no merit in the present application. The same is, accordingly dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/- U