Tribhuwan Kumar v. Sri Kumar Ravi, The Principal Secratory, Department Of Building Construction, Bihar Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3366 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9480 of 2025 ====================================================== Tribhuwan Kumar S/o Gudar Kumar Resident of Village- Dharampur Ratti, Jairampur, P.S.- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Sri Kumar Ravi, the Principal Secratory, Department of Building Construction, Bihar Patna Revenue Bihar, Patna. 2.

Sri Dewesh Sehra the Secratory, Bihar Panchaiti Raj Wibhag, Bihar Patna. 3.

Sri. Dr. S. Sidharth, the Principal Secratory, Department of Education Bihar, Patna.

4.

Sri Kedar Prasad Gupta District Panchayat Raj Padadhikari District Bhagalpur.

5.

Sri Madhusudan Paswan District Education Officer, District Bhagalpur. 6.

Sri Dr. Nawal Kishore Choudhary the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

7.

Sri Himanshu Kumar Ray the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 8.

Sri Awdhesh Kumar the Block Develoupment Officer Bihpur, District Bhagalpur.

9.

Sri Dinesh prasad the Block Education Officer, Bihpur within District Bhagalpur.

10.

Sri Law Kush Kumar the Circle Officer, Bihpur District Bhagalpur. 11.

Sri Subhank Mishra SDM Law and Order, District Bhagalpur. 12.

Srimati Prerna Kumar the S.P. Nawgachiya, District Bhagalpur. 13.

Sri Prashant Kumar the S.H.O., Jhandapur, District Bhagalpur. 14.

Sri Andan Kumar, the Headmaster of the High School (Dharmpur Ratti) Bihpur, District Bhagalpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anupa Nand Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Standing Counsel 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-13 for the State.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court MJC No.3366 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 2/3 State submits that the instant contempt application was filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for violating the interim order dated 07.07.2025 in CWJC No.9480 of 2025 whereby this Court had stayed the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the land in dispute until the writ application is finally adjudicated by this Court.

3. It is submitted that a show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos.4, 6, 8, 10 and 13. It is submitted that construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the land in dispute has been stayed i.e. construction of the land is not progressing and shall not progress till the writ application is finally adjudicated by this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner agrees with the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, but then, submits that the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan on the land in dispute did not stop instantly after the order dated 07.07.2025 was served on the authorities, but then, fairly accepts that the construction now has stopped.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at this stage, draws the attention of the Court to Para-12 of the show-cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos.4, 6, 8, 10

Patna High Court MJC No.3366 of 2025(3) dt.31-10-2025 3/3 and 13 to submit that at Para-12, it has been specifically pleaded that "it is further pertinent to state here that in view of the aforesaid development, the Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Bhagalpur also stopped the construction work with immediate effect and this fact would be evident from the perusal of Letter No.944 dated 09.08.2025 and also mentioned that the work of about One Crore has been completed." (Annexure-/P/C to the show-cause).

6. Be that as it may, since the work has stopped and the writ application is pending and it has been assured that further construction will depend on the final adjudication of the writ application, as such, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, the Court is not inclined to proceed with the contempt application.

7. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U