← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/10/2024dismissed

Anil Kumar Mishra v. The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Giridhar Aramane

2024-10-18Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.10 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1180 of 2023 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Mishra Son of Kedar Nath Mishra Resident of VillageMishrauli, P.S.-Bihiya, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Secretary, Giridhar Aramane Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.

2.

Lt. Col Palani, Assistant General Manager, Principal Controller of Defence Account (Pension), Dubauli Ghat, Allahabad (U.P.). 3.

K.K. Pant, The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Account (Pension), Dubauli Ghat, Allahabad (U.P.). 4.

Anjani Nandan Verma, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, 4th Floor, Administrative Building, Judges Court Road, Patna.

5.

Surendra Kumar, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, 4th Floor, Administrative Building, Judges Court Road, Patna.

6.

Pushkar Chandra, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bihiya Branch, District - Bhojpur (Bihar).

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the U.O.I.

:

Mrs. Kanak Verma, CGC For the SBI :

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2024 Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned CGC for the Union of India and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the SBI.

2. Petitioner being indolent as he has not been able to take steps to provide requisite documents along with the

Patna High Court MJC No.10 of 2024(5) dt.18-10-2024 2/2 representation, as informed by Mrs. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India, cannot seek any interference of this Court.

3. In view of the aforesaid fact, the present contempt petition is disposed of at this stage, considering the fact that for any requirements, sought by the O.P. No.2, have not been produced by the petitioner to the opposite party concerned.

4. The petitioner may take steps as per the requirements sought by the O.P. No.2.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U