Sitaram Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2913 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14120 of 2024 ====================================================== Sitaram Prasad Yadav S/o Late Roudi Yadav, Resident of Village-Bajra, P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Shri Amrit Lal Meena 2.

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, namely Arvind Kumar Chaudhary 3.

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri Anand Kishore 4.

The District Magistrate, Nawada namely Sri Ravi Prakash 5.

The Superintendent of Police, Nawada namely Shri Abhinav Dhiman 6.

The District Account Officer, Nawada namely Manish Kumar Gupta 7.

The Circle Officer, Hisua, Nawada namely Pintu Kumar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ejaz Akhter, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 17-04-2026 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties are present.

2. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the order, for alleged non-compliance of which the present contempt petition has been filed, has already been duly complied with, as a reasoned order has been passed. The benefit of 1st ACP was granted to the petitioner but the petitioner was not found admissible to the MACP for which reason has been

Patna High Court MJC No.2913 of 2025(3) dt.17-04-2026 2/2 assigned in the order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that although an order has been passed in purported compliance with the judgment dated 19.09.2024 rendered in CWJC No. 14120 of 2024, but the petitioner is aggrieved with the said order.

4. In view of the fact that a speaking order has been passed by the opposite parties, the present MJC petition stands dismissed.

5. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the said order, before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U