Patna High CourtMJC/3591/2016disposed

Dwarika Prasad Bind v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-10-18Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3591 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8130 of 2016 ====================================================== Dwarika Prasad Bind, Son of Late Horilal, Resident of village - Nagardad Maliya, P.O.-Maliya, Via-Mananpur, P.S. Chanan (Lakhisarai), District - Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Sunil Kumar, the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

3. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, the D.D.C., Lakhisarai.

4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the B.D.O., C.D. Block Chanan (Lakhisarai), District - Lakhisarai.

5. Mr. Amrendra Kumar, the Assistant Engineer, R.E.O. Works Division, Lakhisarai.

6. Mr. Pappu Kumar, the Junior Engineer, C.D. Block, Chanan (Lakhisarai), District - Lakhisarai.

7. Smt. Gita Devi, Mukhiya Etuan Gram Panchayat, P.O. Mananpur, P.S. Chanan (Lkhisarai), Anchal- Lakhisarai, District - Lakhisarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, AC to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 18-10-2017 Heard the parties.

By the order passed on the writ petition the Block Development Officer, Chanan was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of his dues and dispose of the same by a speaking order.

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Block Development Officer, Chanan vide order bearing Memo No.553 dated 1.8.2016, a copy of which is placed at Annexure 'C' to the show cause.

Patna High Court MJC No.3591 of 2016 (4) dt.18-10-2017 Although the said order does not satisfy the petitioner as according to him, the rejection order is without foundation but then the remedy for the petitioner to question the said order would be in a proper proceeding and not in contempt proceeding.

In view of the order placed at Annexure 'C' no case for contempt is made out and this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner, if so advised, to question the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Chanan bearing Memo No.553 dated 1.8.2016 before the proper forum by filing an appropriate application.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U