← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/2745/2019disposed

Nirmala Devi, v. The State Of Bihar

2019-10-23Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2745 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5338 of 2019 ====================================================== Nirmala Devi, Wife of Bhola Singh @ Bhola Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Punama Pratap Nagar, Tola Korchakka, P.S.- Naugachia, DistrictBhagalpur currently working as Voluntary worker (Mid wife) Sub-Divisional Hospital Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Ist Floor, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna800015. 2.

Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajeshwar Singh (GA10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-10-2019 Perused the show cause reply.

The direction issued by this Court on 09.04.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 5338 of 2019 has been complied with and the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhagalpur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the concerned respondent is absolutely wrong as a communication which is with respect to daily

Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2019(4) dt.23-10-2019 2/2 wagers has been applied in the case of the petitioner. The merits of the order passed in compliance of a direction of this Court is amenable to challenge in an appropriate/fresh proceeding but not in a contempt proceeding.

Since the direction issued by this Court has been complied with, this Court does not wish to entertain the present petition.

The contempt petition is consigned to records. It would be open for the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the order passed by the concerned respondent in an appropriate proceeding.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U