In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged flouting of a High Court order. The Court held that the impugned order merely deprecated compromising PILs and issued no mandatory direction, providing no ground for contempt.
The petitioner is left to his remedy and the application for contempt is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2192 of 2013 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10991 of 2012
.... .... Opp.Parties
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)
The contempt application has been has been filed alleging flouting of the order dated 3.8.2012 of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10991 of 2012. By the said order this Court had merely deprecated that it is unfortunate that public interest litigation was lodged in order to extract a compromise outside the
Patna High Court MJC No.2192 of 2013 (2) dt.03-07-2015
2/2
Court which was not a healthy indication and after noting that the compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no. 8, this Court had disposed of the public interest litigation.
litigation.
It is evident from the said order that no direction had been issued by this Court which was required to be complied by any one nor the matter had been disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the contempt application is dismissed.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
S.Pandey/-
(Anjana Mishra, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt application alleging flouting of a preceding order deserves dismissal when no mandatory direction was issued by the Court.
Whether the Court's order in the underlying PIL that deprecated lodging compromise outside the court constituted a mandate requiring compliance by respondents.
Chandra Kishore Sharma
The State Of Bihar
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rakesh
Mr. Manish Kumar
Mr. Birendra Lal Yadav
Mr. Kavindra Nath Thakur
Ramesh Kumar Datta
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
