Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings against the opposite parties dropped and the contempt petition disposed of; petitioner retains liberty to prefer a fresh contempt petition if the amount of Rs. 8,23,330/- is not returned within a reasonable period by the opposite party no. 3.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings initiated against the opposite parties for alleged willful violation of the order dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1326 of 2003 should be continued in view of the substantial compliance said to have been effected, including the decision to return Rs. 8,23,330/- to the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the order dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1326 of 2003 has substantially been complied with by the opposite parties, the court sees no reason to further proceed in the present matter.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

Key takeaways

The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶24
If the aforesaid amount (Rs. 8,23,330/-) is not returned to the petitioner within a reasonable period by the opposite party no. 3, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a fresh contempt petition.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt — alleged willful violation of order dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1326 of 2003 — compliance effected through reasoned order (memo no. 6595 dated 06.12.2023) passed by Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, deciding that Rs. 8,23,330/- is to be returned to the petitioner — petitioner's counsel reported the amount as yet unreturned — court found the writ order substantially complied with and saw no reason to proceed further — contempt proceedings against all eight opposite parties (State of Jharkhand; Secretaries Aradhana Patnaik and Prashant Kumar; BDOs of Gumla, Bishunpur and Ghaghra; Superintending Engineer Sanjay Kumar) dropped — contempt petition disposed of — liberty reserved to petitioner to prefer a fresh contempt petition if the refund is not made within a reasonable period by opposite party no. 3 (Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 59 of 2021

---

Ganesh Kumar … … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

Mrs. Aradhana Patnaik, Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Mr. Prashant Kumar, Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

Mr. Shishir Kumar Sinha, Block Development Officer, Gumla 5. Smt. Chanda Bhattacharya, Block Development Officer, Bishunpur, District-Gumla

Mr. Bishnu Dev Kachhap, Block Development Officer, Ghaghra, District-Gumla

Smt Sandhya Mundu, Block Development Officer, Gumla

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Integrated Planning Investigation and Water Science Zone-1, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

…. … Opp. Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Aman Dayal Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II Mr. Abhilash Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-II

Order No. 07 Dated: 19.01.2024

The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties alleging willful violation of order dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1326 of 2003.

2. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, submits that in compliance of order 16.07.2008 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, reasoned order as contained in memo no. 6595 dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure-A to the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 18.01.2024 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3) has been passed by the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand, whereby it has been decided that an amount of Rs.8,23,330/- is to be returned to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite passing of the aforesaid order, the said amount has not yet been returned to the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may. Since the order dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1326 of 2003 has substantially been complied by the opposite parties, I see no reason to further proceed in the present matter.

5. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties is hereby dropped.

6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

7. If the aforesaid amount is not returned to the petitioner

within a reasonable period by the opposite party no. 3, the

petitioner is at liberty to prefer a fresh contempt petition.

Ritesh/

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)