Satyendra Narayan Roy v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2237 of 2011 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18888 of 2010 =========================================================== Satyendra Narayan Roy, Son of Late Manki Roy, R/o Mohalla- North Patliputra Behind Usha Apartments, P.O. + P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Mr. A. K. Sinha, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariate, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

2. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Rep) through its Administrator, Dr. B. Rajendra, Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Dr. B. Rajendra, the Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (Rep), Pant Bhawan, Patna.

4. Dr. Murli Manohar Ghosh, Under Secretary, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board.

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad & Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.C. to S.C. 14 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present contempt application has been filed alleging non compliance of the order of the Court dated 19.11.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 18888 of 2010. From perusal of the order it appears that the Court had given liberty to the petitioner to file representation, which was to be disposed off expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months.

From the materials on record, it is clear that pursuant to such order, the authority has passed order contained in Memo No. 203 dated 01.02.2012, copy of which has been brought on record as

Patna High Court MJC No.2237 of 2011 dt.19-10-2016 2/2 Annexure-A to the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1.

In view of the aforesaid, the order of the Court dated 19.11.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18888 of 2010 stands complied with.

The claim of the petitioner having been rejected may give rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to agitate before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, but not in the present contempt application.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, relating to the order dated 01.02.2012 contained in Memo No. 203.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T