Disposed

Abdul Khalique v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2024Cont.(Cvl)/45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 25.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 2180 of 2020 concerning payment of admitted dues. On a compliance affidavit showing dues of Rs.7,91,355 were to be paid, the Court held the order substantially complied with and dropped the contempt proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding against opposite parties dropped; petition disposed of.

Abdul Khalique Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 45 of 2022

Abdul Khalique

… … Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Director-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee, Ranchi

¶6

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, Ranchi

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Executive Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, Ranchi

¶8

Mr. Shailesh Somaiya, Manager-cum-Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, Santhal Pargana Zone, Pakur … … Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party No. 1 : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III For the Opp. Party Nos.2-4: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate

¶11

Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate

¶12

-----

¶13

05/08.01.2024 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite parties alleging willful disobedience of order dated 25.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2180 of 2020.

¶14

2. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, refers to the show cause affidavit 03.03.2023 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, paragraph no. 7 of which reads as under:

¶15

“ 7. That it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the instant compliance report is filed wherein and whereunder order dated 25.10.2021 has been complied in its true letter and spirit by passing an appropriate informed decision by the Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited vide letter No. 574 dated 23.02.2023 wherein admitted dues of Rs.7,91,355/- has to be paid to the petitioner as the funds will be made available by the Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department to JSBCCL.”

¶16

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶17

considering the aforesaid facts stated in the show cause affidavit filed

¶18

on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, this Court is of the view that order dated 25.10.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2180 of 2020 has substantially been complied by the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. Hence, I see no reason to further proceed in the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

¶19

4. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶21

Manish

Abdul Khalique v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khalique v. the 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

Daniel Bachman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anita Devi Vs Dr Manish Ranjan the Principal Secretary Rural Engineering Organization/ Rural Development Deptt

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India Represented through Ministry of Home Affairs through Its Secretary

Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Limited Thr Its Project in Charge Mr Arvind Kumar Vs M Nagaraju the Additional Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Coal

Quazi Shakeel Ekta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Nav Nirman Builders through Its Partner Vinay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand