Disposed

Ram Yatan Prasad v. Sri Bishwa Nath Singh and Anr.

Patna HC20 Apr 2011MJC/2736/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the delay in passing a fresh order by the Patna Municipal Corporation after its earlier order was remitted to conform to natural justice. The Court held that since opposite parties complied, they cannot be punished for contempt, and the application is disposed of with liberty to pursue further remedies.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to petitioner to pursue remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

Ram Yatan Prasad Vs Sri Bishwa Nath Singh and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2736 of 2008

¶2

RAM YATAN PRASAD SON OF LATE JATU SINGH R/O VILLAGE- PARSA BAZAR, P.S. PARSA BAZAR, DISTT-PATNA……………………………….PETITIONER

¶3

Versus

¶4

SRI BISHWA NATH SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONER AT PRESENT POSTED AS COMMISSIONER CUM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT-PATNA.

¶5

SRI BADIYA NATH DAS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONER AT PRESENT POSTED AS DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BUDHA MARG, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT-PATNA.

¶6

THE STATE OF BIHAR…………....OPP. PARTIES.

¶7

¶8

08/ 20^th April 2011

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.

¶10

As per order of the writ Court contained in Annexure-1 the issue whether petitioner should be deprived of the benefit of an order dated 15.06.1995 was remitted back because the earlier impugned order of the Corporation

¶11

was prima facie in violation of principle of natural justice. Petitioner was given right to file a representation and Patna Municipal Corporation was required to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶12

No doubt, the Corporation has taken

¶13

¶14

a considerably long period in passing a fresh order pursuant to order dated 13.3.2008 contained in Annexure-1 but now a fresh decision has been taken and that has been annexed as

¶15

Annexure-A to the supplementary show-cause.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order contained in Annexure-A dated 8^th March 2011 does not consider the two points which were earlier raised before the writ Court and were required to be considered. He has also assailed that order on several other grounds.

¶17

In the facts of the case, it is not possible to punish the opposite parties for contempt when they have complied with the order of the writ Court by passing afresh order. The appropriate relief which the petitioner seeks cannot be granted in contempt jurisdiction. This application is, therefore, finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, he may pursue his remedy through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.

¶18

(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

¶19

perwez

Ram Yatan Prasad v. Sri Bishwa Nath Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Yatan Prasad v. Sri Bishwa Nath Singh and Anr.

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

Ashok Singh Vs the State Election Commission

Swami Nath Bhagat Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Brij Nandan Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ashwini Kumar Gupta Assistant Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Vinod Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.