Patna High CourtMJC/124/2013disposed

Ran Vijay Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-01-19Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.124 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22821 of 2011 ====================================================== Ran Vijay Prasad Singh , son of Sri Ambika Prasad Singh , resident of Village - Pundoul, P.O. Goh, District - Aurangabad ( Bihar ) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Mr. S.K. Negi, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2. Mr. Sumir Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. Mr. Sumir Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary, W.R.D., Bihar

4. Mr. Kailu Sardar, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

5. Mr. Bharat Jha Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumari Anju Desai For the Opposite Parties :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to Principal Additional Advocate General.

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 25/01/2012 passed in CWJC No.22821 of 2011 whereby, while disposing of the writ petition this court had directed to conclude the departmental proceeding within a specified time.

In this case earlier show cause was filed and by filing

Patna High Court MJC No.124 of 2013 (12) dt.19-01-2015 2/2 show cause by opposite party no. 5 it has been indicated that the petitioner was exonerated from departmental proceeding and period of suspension has been regularized vide notification dated 14/10/2014.

In view of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that departmental proceeding which was earlier initiated against the petitioner has already come to an end, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the writ court has already been complied. It was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of other claim, the petitioner has filed a separate writ petition.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U