← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/4392/2024consigned

Dinesh Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4392 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12683 of 2024 ====================================================== Dinesh Kumar Das S/o Late Jagranath Das R/o-Mohalla-Das Colony P.S.- Mithanpura, District-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Mr. K.K. Pathak, the Principal Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Mr. Shri Sravanan M, the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, , Muzaffarpur.

3.

Mr. K.K. Pathak , the Joint Secretory Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Bihar, Patna.

4.

Mr. Subrat Kumar Sen, the Collector, Muzaffarpur. 5.

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur. 6.

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, the Block Development Officer, Motipur, Muzaffarpur. 7.

Miss Ruchi Kumari, the Circle Officer, Motipur, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Manoj, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG 13 Mr. Arya Achint, AC to AAG 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State referring to the statement and information contained in paragraphs no.6 of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2, 4, 5 and 7, submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, as the representation of the

Patna High Court MJC No.4392 of 2024(3) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 petitioner has been disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order by the five-member Screening Committee.

3. Considering the aforesaid information contained in paragraphs no.6 of the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.2, 4, 5 and 7, the order under contempt appears to have been complied.

4. However, the petitioner if still aggrieved in any manner, he would at be liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

5. The present contempt petition, accordingly, stands consigned.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U