Fauzdari Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4312 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7996 of 2014 ======================================================
1. Fauzdari Singh Son of Late Godhan Singh resident of Mohalla Medni Mal Pokhra, P.S. Hajipur Town, District - Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Ravi Kumar, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vaishali.
3. Rajesh Baidhi the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Municipality Hajipur, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. Suman Kumar the Special Officer, Hajipur Nagar Parishad, Hajipur District Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, AAG 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 27-06-2018 The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the writ petitioner to respond to the notice of the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hajipur dated 18.10.2014 placed at Annexure C and whereupon the Executive Officer was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within 3 months of the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. It is alleging none compliance that the present contempt application is filed.
A show cause is also filed in which it is stated that despite reminders the petitioner has failed to submit his response in the light of the directions of this Court. A rejoinder is filed today
Patna High Court MJC No.4312 of 2016 (5) dt.27-06-2018 2/2 contesting the position but neither the contempt application nor the rejoinder filed today encloses a copy of the response to the notice of the Executive Officer dated 18.10.2014 as directed by this Court.
A fail attempt has been made by Mr. Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner to justify the action of the petitioner but considering that there is nothing on the record to contest the statement of the Executive Officer regarding failure by the petitioner to discharge his obligation of filing response to the notice dated 18.10.2014, no case for contempt is made out against the opposite parties for the present as until such time that the petitioner discharges his own obligation cast upon him under the order of this Court he cannot complain disobedience by the opposite parties.
The contempt application is dismissed.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash U