Shanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar Through Sri Anshul … on 18 April, 2025

0
10


Patna High Court

Shanti Devi vs The State Of Bihar Through Sri Anshul … on 18 April, 2025

Author: P. B. Bajanthri

Bench: P. B. Bajanthri

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3528 of 2024
                                         In
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3104 of 2021
     ======================================================
     Shanti Devi Wife of Late Kedar Nath Goswami, Resident of Village-
     Brahampur, P.O.-Brahampur, District-Buxar.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                    Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through Sri Anshul Agarwal the District Magistrate,
     Buxar Buxar.
2.   The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited through Sri Pankaj
     Kumar Pal the Chief Managing Director.
3.   The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited through its General Manager,
     ER-1, Head Office, Shastri Nagar, Patna, Bihar.
4.   Sri Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, the Managing Director, Bihar Grid Power
     Corporation, Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna.
5.   Sri Mahendra Kumar, the Managing Director, South Bihar Power
     Distribution Company Limited.
6.   Rakesh Kumar Dubey, the Electric Executive Engineer, Dumraon, Buxar
     Division.
7.   Rakesh Kumar, the SDO, Dumraon, Buxar.
8.   Smt. Khushbu Khatoon, the Circle Officer, Brahampur, Buxar.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s                     : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
     For SBPDCL                               : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
                                                Mr. Rajan Prakash, Adv.
     For the Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd.   : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv.
     For the Respondent                       : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Adv. (For Bihar
                                               Grid)
                                                Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv.
                                                Mr. Shashank Shekhar Kumar, Adv.
                                                Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh AC to SC 6

     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 18-04-2025

The present M.J.C. Contempt has been filed in the
Patna High Court MJC No.3528 of 2024 dt.18-04-2025
2/3

year 2024 insofar as non compliance of the orders of the Co-

ordinate Bench dated 14.12.2021, passed in C.W.J.C. No.

3104 of 2021.

2. On 14.12.2021, while disposing C.W.J.C. No.

3104 of 2021, co-ordinate Bench directed the petitioner to

approach the concerned authority within a period of four

weeks while submitting representation. Petitioner had filed

representation on 10.01.2022. Thereafter, the concerned

authority was required to comply in passing a reasoned and

speaking order within a period of two months. Two months

have lapsed on 09.03.2022. Cause of action accrued for filing

Contempt petition was on 09.03.2022 and one year had

lapsed on 08.03.2023, whereas the present Contempt is filed

in the year 2024 that is more than one year delay in filing.

Resultantly, Contempt Petition cannot be entertained in the

light of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read

with Article 215 of the Constitution. Co-ordinate Bench in

case of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha and others Vs. The

Union of India and others (M.J.C. No. 1840 of 2023)

elaborately considered the aforementioned provisions and
Patna High Court MJC No.3528 of 2024 dt.18-04-2025
3/3

proceeded to dismiss the Contempt Petition on the ground of

delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.

Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah & others decided

on 22nd of july, 2024 (2024 scc online sc 1764) in

which Contempt Petition was dismissed on the ground of

delay.

3. Taking note of these facts and circumstances,

petitioner has not made out a case so as to entertain the

present Contempt Petition beyond one year from the date of

cause of action accrued to him.

4. Accordingly, the present Contempt Petition stands

dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke such

other remedy which is available to him/her.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24.04.2025
Transmission Date       NA
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here