Patna High CourtMJC/400/2013disposed

Tarni Mandal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-04-15Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.400 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14333 of 2008 ====================================================== Tarni Mandal, son of Late Sri Prasad, resident of village- Faridpur ( Uttar Tola), P.O. Jamalpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Primary and Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, namely, Mr. Amarjeet Sinha

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, namely, Mr. Kamal Kishore Sinha

3. District Education Officer, Munger, namely, Mr. Arun Kumar Kunwar

4. District Provident Fund Officer, Munger, namely, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh

5. Headmistress, N.C. Ghosh Girls High School, Jamalpur, namely, Smt. Manju Rani Sinha

6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna, namely, I.S.D. Dhariwal .... .... Opp.Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar GA-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ........................

15-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned GA-10 as well as Sri L.P.K. Rajgrihar, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar.

The present petition has been filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against Opp.Parties on an allegation of wilful disobedience to an order dated 23.11.2011 passed in C.W.J.C.No.14333 of 2008.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that during the pendency of the present petition,

Patna High Court MJC No.400 of 2013 (9) dt.15-04-2015 2/2 grievances of the petitioner have already been redressed. However, he makes a prayer for directing the Opp.Parties to pay interest on delayed payment.

The Court is of the opinion that in contempt jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate for this Court to travel beyond the order passed in the writ petition.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U