Dinesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.197 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4249 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Dinesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Siya Ram Singh, Resident of VillagePachayana, P.O.- New Mohamadpur, Police Station-Koelwar, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mr. Chanchal Kumar, Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Chief Engineer (South), Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Mr. Subhas Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Circle, Ara.

5. Mr. Ramesh Prasad, Executive Engineer, Building Division, Ara.

6. Mr. Sudama Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Building Sub-Division, Ara. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binodji Verma, G.P.-17 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-02-2017 No one appears for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State is present.

In this case, the petitioner is raising grievance that the order of this Court dated 27.08.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4249 of 2014 has not been complied with, whereby this Court has disposed of the said writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the authority concerned i.e. the Chief Engineer, who will examine and dispose of the same.

Patna High Court MJC No.197 of 2015 dt.09-02-2017 2/2 From the show-cause, it appears that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Committee and the Committee has found that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.44, 192/-. In pursuance thereof, recommendation and requisition were made for payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner.

As the substantial act has been taken by the opposite parties, there is no need to keep this matter pending. Accordingly, this contempt proceeding is dropped.

The State must ensure the payment of the aforesaid amount, if the same has not been paid to the petitioner. This order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for the State.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N/A.

Uploading Date 13.02.2017 Transmission Date N/A.