Binay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2654 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3523 of 2012 ====================================================== Binay Kumar, Son of Mishra Kant Mandal, Resident of Village - Sarva, Post Office Motanga via Panjwara, District - Banka presently resident at Panjwara, Police Station - Panjwara, District - Banka.

... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

2.

Mr. Amir Subahani, Son of not known, Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3.

Mr. Rajvindar Singh Bhatti, Son of not known, Director General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna.

4.

Mr. Anshul Kumar, Son of not known, the District Magistrate, Banka. 5.

Dr. Satya Prakash, Son of not known, the Superintendent of Police Banka. 6.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Banka namely Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of not known to the petitioner.

7.

The Officer in Charge of Police Station of Panjwara Banka namely Anil Kumar Sao, Son of not known to the petitioner. 8.

The Circle Officer, Barahat within District Banka namely Rajesh Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner.

9.

Sri Narsing Paswan, Son of Late Mahavir Paswan, Resident of Panjwara, Police Station Panjwara, District Banka.

... ... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 09-04-2024 The present M.J.C./Contempt Petition No.2654 of 2023 is arising out of the order dated 22.02.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3523 of 2012.

Patna High Court MJC No.2654 of 2023(3) dt.09-04-2024 2/2

2. Prima facie, the present M.J.C./Contempt Petition is not maintainable on the ground of limitation with reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed. Therefore, nothing remains in the present lis.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed. If he has any dispute in that event, he must have a fresh cause of action. In that regard, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition and in accordance with law.

5. With the above observations, the present M.J.C./Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J) P.S./- U