Patna High CourtMJC/2852/2018disposed

Mamta Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-04Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2852 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4119 of 2006 ====================================================== Mamta Devi, Wife of Late Tuntun Mahto, Resident of Chitragupt Nagar, Pokharia, P.S.- Begusarai Town, District- Begusarai. Presenly residing at Village- Lakho, P.S.- Begusarai Muffasil, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Shri Diwan Abdul Aziz Khan, District Judge, Begusarai, Civil Court. 3.Shri Diwan Abdul Aziz Khan, Judge-in-Charge, Administration, Begusarai, Civil Court.

4. Shri not known, Registrar, Civil Court, Begusarai.

5. Shri Bidhu Bhushan Pathak, Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha - GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 04-09-2018 Today, a show cause has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4. Annexure A series is the reasoned order dated 23.07.2011 passed by the Committee presided over by the District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai.

While it is true that the order as contained in Annexure A series should have been communicated to the petitioner, the fact remains that the same has not been communicated to the petitioner which has kept her uninformed but now that Annexure A series has come on record, this contempt application cannot proceed. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits

Patna High Court MJC No.2852 of 2018 (4) dt.04-09-2018 2/2 that he would challenge the order passed by the Committee in an appropriate proceeding for which this Court may grant him liberty. This contempt application is thus disposed off with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.07.2011 in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate Court of law. In view of the admitted position that the order was not communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner need not apprehend that any question of limitation will be raised against her by the Opposite Parties in any proceeding.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha.