Patna High CourtMJC/3049/2013disposed

Sidhnath Prasar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-02-06Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court MJC No.3049 of 2013 dt.06-02-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3049 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13221 of 2012 =========================================================== SIDHNATH PRASAR, S/O LATE GAURI SHANKAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMOHAMADPUR BADAL, P.S.

SAKRA, DISTRICTMUZAFFARPUR.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAMELY, DR. DIPAK PRASAD, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SONE BHAWAN, VTH FLOOR, PATNA

3. FINANCIAL CHIEF, NAMELY, SITA CHOUDHARY, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SONE BHAWAN, PATNA

4. DISTRICT MANAGER,NAMELY, RAJEEV KUAMR, BIHAR STATE FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SITAMARHI .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rudal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Promod Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-2. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-02-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bihar State Food Corporation and learned AC to AAG-2 are present.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in compliance of order dated 01.08.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13221 of 2012, the Managing Director, Bihar State Food Corporation and Civil Supplies Corporation, Sone Bhawan, Patna (opposite party no.

2) decided the dispute and passed speaking order through order No.

Patna High Court MJC No.3049 of 2013 dt.06-02-2015 1152 dated 31.01.2014, as detailed in Annexure A to the show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while opposite party no. 2 has decided the dispute in compliance of the order under contempt, vide annexure A to the show cause, field on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 but opportunity was not given to him properly.

Since the direction, under contempt, has already been complied with by the opposite party no. 2 as admitted by the petitioner, therefore, no action is required to be taken. Accordingly, this contempt application is disposed of. If the petitioner still aggrieve, he may take recourse in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U