Anjani Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 312 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17425 of 2011 ====================================================== Anjani Kumar Sinha Son of Late Awadh Prasad resident of Road No. 6A, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. Rajendra Nagar, P.S. - Kadamkuan, District - Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Sanjay Agarwal, Collector, Patna.

3. Anjani Kumar Sinha, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Sri Bhawani Nandan, Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Smt. Sheela Sharma For the Opp. Party/s :

AC to AAG - 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10.

27-06-2018 Heard Smt. Sheela Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 12. The present petition was filed for initiating a contempt proceeding on an allegation of willful disobedience to an order dated 16-01-2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17425 of 2011 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C.Verma (as he then was). Fact remains that after order of the writ court, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, vide M.J.C. No. 1730 of 2013, complaining that order of the writ court was not complied with. In the said contempt petition, show cause was filed on behalf of the State and it was informed that order of the

Patna High Court MJC No.312 of 2017(10) dt.27-06-2018 2/2 writ court had already been complied with in its letter and spirit. At the time of making submission by learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner was present and he did not dispute the submission of learned State counsel. Accordingly, the contempt petition was disposed of by order dated 20-10-2014. Again thereafter, the present petition was filed on a complaint that order of the writ court has not been complied with.

The Court is of the opinion that no such question can be entertained. If petitioner feels aggrieved, he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, at least, in the contempt proceeding, this Court is not in a position to issue any mandamus.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) anay U