Md. Azeem @ Md. Azeem Uddin v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3271 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1928 of 2023 ====================================================== Md. Azeem @ Md. Azeem Uddin Son of Dost Mohammad @ Sheikh Dost Mohammad, resident of Village- Majgawa, Ward No.3, P.S.- Jokihat, DistrictAraria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. Brajesh Malhotra the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 2.

Mr. Inayat Khan, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Araria. 3.

Mr. Anil Kumar Thakur, the Additional Collector, Araria. 4.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mukul, District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria. 5.

Mr. Nawab Alam, Senior Project Engineer, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited, Work Division, Katihar.

6.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Managing Director, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (Sc25) For Opposite Party Nos.5 & 6:

Ms. Binita Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that order has not been complied.

3. Learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited submit that this Hon'ble Court had pleased to direct to pass a

Patna High Court MJC No.3271 of 2023(4) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 reasoned and speaking order by virtue of order dated 07.08.2023 passed in CWJC No.1928 of 2023. Counsel submits that the reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Bridge Construction Corporation Limited and copy of the same has been served upon the Counsel for the petitioner by show-cause filed by Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6.

4. On perusal of the said Annexure-R/A, it transpires that reasoned order has been passed contained in Memo No.208 dated 22.01.2024.

5. In the light of the compliance of the order, there is no need of continuation of contempt. This M.J.C. petition is hereby dropped with liberty that in case petitioner has any grievance from the said speaking order he has remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

6. Accordingly, the M.J.C. application stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U