Dhirendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.953 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5640 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, son of Bhuneshwar Yadav, resident of VillageJamhara, P.O.- Biratpur Gram Panchayat Nanauti, Police Station and BlockSonbarsa, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Binod Singh Gungil, the District Magistrate, Saharsa.

3. Sri Swadhendra Choudhary, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa.

4. Sri Apurva Kumar Madhukar, the Panchayat Officer, Saharsa.

5. Sri Chanda Kumari, the Block Development Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa.

6. Sri Sikandar Yadav, son of Bandey Lal Yadav, resident of Gram Panchayat Kathdumar, Block- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa.

7. Sri Kameshwar Yadav, son of Parmeshwar Yadav, resident of Panchayat Mohanpur, Police Station and District- Saharsa, at present posted at Sadar Kendriya Block on the post of Panchayat Sewak, District- Saharsa. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi - Aag 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Three-Man Committee constituted by the Collector has not been taken into consideration while passing the reasoned order which is marked as Annexure -'A'.

However, learned counsel for the State points out that due consideration on the said report has also been made and,

Patna High Court MJC No.953 of 2017 (11) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 thereafter, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's case has been rejected.

After perusal of the show-cause filed by the State, it appears that vide Annexure-'A', a reasoned order has been passed to the detriment of the petitioner. Thus, no case of contempt is made out.

The contempt application stands dismissed.

The petitioner is, however, at liberty to assail the order passed by the opposite parties, if so tenable under law. (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- U