Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4290 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15754 of 2007 ====================================================== Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Sharda Prasad Singh, resident of Village -Brahpur, P.S. -Mokama, District -Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna

2. Hukum Singh Meena, The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna

3. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Samiti, through Managing Director, Budh Marg, Patna

4. Vijay Singh, The Chairman, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Samiti, Budh Marg, Patna

5. Binod Prasad Singh, Managing Director, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Samiti, Budh Marg, Patna

6. Mazid Alam, Director (Personnel), Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Samiti, Budh Marg, Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Shri Arjun Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-07-2017 Heard Shri Arjun Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to GP No. 4 as well as Sri Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, learned counsel , who has appeared on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 to 6.

The present petition was filed with a prayer to initiate contempt proceeding against opposite parties for violation of the order dated 12.08.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15754 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the writ court has not been complied with in its letter and

Patna High Court MJC No.4290 of 2014 (10) dt.19-07-2017 2/2 spirit, whereas Sri Chaudhary , learned counsel for the Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited by way of referring to the statement made in 3rd supplementary show cause submits that in terms of direction of this Court entire admissible dues has already been paid to the petitioner. He submits that by filing 3rd supplementary show cause it was indicated that cheques for the claimed amount were ready for handing over, however today he submits that all the cheques mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the 3rd supplementary show cause has already been handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that cheques mentioned in 3rd supplementary show cause has already been received by the petitioner, however he claims that still there is some due.

Except oral submission , no rejoinder to the 3rd supplementary show cause has been filed and as such, considering the statement made in 3rd supplementary show cause as well as admission of learned counsel for the petitioner that cheques referred in paragraph no. 4 of the 3rd supplementary show cause has been received by the petitioner, there is no reason to keep the matter pending.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U