Satya Narain Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Mr. Prataya Amrit The Secretary Energy Department Govt. Of Bihar Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3287 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17345 of 2008 ====================================================== Satya Narain Prasad Son of Late Lal Bihari Sah, resident of VillageLakshmipur, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Sheohar, District- Sheohar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Mr. Prataya Amrit, The Secretary, Energy Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Prataya Amrit, Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Ajay Kumar, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa.

5. Jai Shankar Jha, Superintending Engineer, Electrical Cirlce, Muzaffarpur.

6. Bindhyachal Prasad, Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Madhepura.

7. Prashant Kumar Ranju, Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Supaul.

8. Electric Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Birpur The Said Division Abolish.

.... .... opposite parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma For the opposite parties :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-05-2016 Heard Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.

The present petition was filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties on an allegation of willful disobedience to an order dated 16.12.2011 passed in CWJC No. 17345 of 2008.

Patna High Court MJC No.3287 of 2015 (4) dt.18-05-2016 2/2 In this case show cause has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 and a specific stand has been taken that all the amount has been paid with interest also. It has been indicated that though there was no statutory provision even then in compliance with the order of this court interest has already been paid. So far the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of arrear of T.A. bill is concerned, it has been indicated that due to non -availability of the bill same has not been paid. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances particularly the stand taken in the show cause the court is satisfied that order of the writ court has already been complied. Regarding payment of arrear of T.A. bill, the petitioner if so advised may produce copy of such bill before the authority concerned and immediately after producing such bill payment is required to be made by the opposite parties without any delay. The contempt petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U