Dismissed

Ms Ganesh Pandey through Its Proprietor Ganesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2019Cont.(Cvl)/282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt application filed against the District Education Officer. The court held that the officer had complied with the prior direction by issuing a letter stating no further claim was made. The contempt proceeding was dropped, though the petitioner was advised to seek legal recourse if dissatisfied with the payment.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceeding against the Opposite Party No. 2 is dropped and the present application is disposed of.

Ms Ganesh Pandey through Its Proprietor Ganesh Pandey Vs… — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 282 of 2019

¶3

M/S Ganesh Pandey, Ranchi, through its Proprietor, Ganesh Pandey

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mr. Ratan Mahawar, District Education Officer, Lohardaga

¶8

….. Opposite Parties -----

¶9

CORAM

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra For the O.Ps: Mr. J. F. Toppo, S.C (L&C)-III

¶13

¶14

04/09.08.2019 The present contempt application has been filed against the O.P. No.2 for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 610/2018.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Vide order dated 09.10.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 610/2018, the following direction was given to the O.P.No.2:

¶17

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation before the District Education Officer, Lohardaga-respondent No.5 in this regard. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.5, after verifying the relevant record and on providing an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner, shall take appropriate decision for payment of the amount claimed by the petitioner in relation to the work in question, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.”

¶18

A show cause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2 annexing copy of letter No. 841 dated 06.08.2019 issued by him to the petitioner wherein it has been informed that no claim for further payment is made out.

¶19

Considering the fact that the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 610/2018 has already been complied by the O.P.No.2, I see no reason to proceed further with the matter.

¶20

The contempt proceeding against the O.P.No.2 is dropped.

¶21

The present contempt application stands disposed of.

¶22

However, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the payment made by the

¶23

O.P.No.2, it is at liberty to take appropriate recourse in this regard as provided under law.

¶24

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶25

Satish/-

Ms Ganesh Pandey through Its Proprietor Ganesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ganesh Pandey through Its Proprietor Ganesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikash Paliwar Alias Bhakhand Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Mandal Alias Manoj Kumar Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gobind Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dadu Boipai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dipak Panda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gulam Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand