Rajendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, R. K. Mahajan, Department Of Human Resource, Go

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 743 of 2018 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17314 of 2014 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Ramnandan Singh, Resident of VillagePatya, P.O.- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. Name- Kanwal Tanuj. 3.

The District Education Officer, Aurangabad. Name- Ram Pravesh Singh (The then and Present).

4.

The D.P.O. (Estt.), Aurangabad name- Ajay Jaiswal. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Aurangabad. Name- Mithilesh Kumar (The then D.P.O. SSA). Name- Jawahar Prasad (Present D.P.O.) 6.

The Treasury Officer, Aurangabad, Name Ram Pravesh Yadav. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Advocate For the State :

Mr. P. M. Sharan, AC to AAG 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG 15 for the State.

2. In terms of the order dated 07.08.019, learned counsel for the State submitted that he had served copy of the show cause on learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.08.2019 itself. No rejoinder to the same has been filed.

3. In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4, the stand was that an amount of Rs. 4,82,000/-, which was

Patna High Court MJC No.743 of 2018 dt.26-08-2019 2/2 also noticed by the Court in its order dated 23.05.2017 passed in CWJC No. 17314 of 2014, has still not been reconciled or settled by the petitioner.

4. In view thereof, the authorities cannot be said to have committed any contempt as unless the petitioner settles the account for the aforesaid amount only then the onus would be on the authorities to act in terms of the order dated 23.05.2017.

5. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off.

6. However, in terms of the order dated 07.08.2019, if cost is not deposited and receipt filed, the Registry shall place the matter before the Bench for appropriate orders. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T