Patna High CourtMJC/1548/2009disposed

Sri Babban Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-07-28Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1548 of 2009 ====================================================== Sri Babban Prasad Singh, son of Late Bindeshwari Singh, Proprietor of Hitech Engineering, resident of Veriety Complex, Sheopur, Mahendru, P.S. - Pirbahore, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the Industrial Development Commissioner, Vikash Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. Sri Uday Naray Thakur, the Director, Industry Department, Vikash Bhawan New Secretariat, Patna.

4. Sri B.N. Prasad, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patliputra Industrial Area, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. (GP20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 3.

28-07-2016 From the pleadings, it is clear that this Court had passed two directions in the writ proceedings. (i) For payment of balance amount, and (ii) No recovery from the writ petitioner.

Being aggrieved, State preferred Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 1180/2009 which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 03.08.2011. Thus, the order of this Court became final.

This contempt application had been filed pursuant to the writ court's order. Outstanding payment of about Rs. 3,15,360/- was not being given to the

Patna High Court MJC No.1548 of 2009 (3) dt.28-07-2016 2 / 2 petitioner. Though, State is present, petitioner is not represented. This court is not in a position to ascertain that the other payments have been made or not. However, it is assumed that though five years have gone by payments must have been made. In case, payments have not been made, it would be the duty of the respondents to ensure that the payments are made forthwith. The petitioner would have liberty to institute contempt proceedings again if payments are not received. With this observation, this application stands disposed of.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) Rajeev/- U