Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mithilesh Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 31 August, 2015

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh, P.P.Bhatt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Contempt (Civil) Case No. 1033 OF 2012
                                      -----
Mithilesh Singh s/o late Gupteshwar Singh resident of village - Haidar Nagar,
Tolla - Bindu Bigha PO & PS Haidar Nagar, District - Palamau
                                                                 Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Seretary, Sri Shiv Basant
2.Mrs. Mridula Sinha, the Secretary Human Resources Development Department,
Jharkhand Ranchi
3.Sri Ashok Jha, District Superintendent of Education, Palamau at Daltonganj
(Medini Nagar)
                                                           Opposite Parties
                                       ----
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
                 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
                                      -----
For the Appellant/Petitioner        : None
For the Respondents                 : ------
                                  ------
                                                    Dated 31st August, 2015

Per Virender Singh,C.J.

It appears that the petitioner earlier filed a Contempt (Civil) Case No.834/2009 for compliance of the order dated 28th April, 2008 pased in W.P(PIL) No.4898/2006, which he withdrew on 7th April, 2011, in view of some show cause filed. It is how the noitices were discharged in the said contempt petition. He has thereafter filed another contempt petition bearing Contempt (Civil) Case No.1033/2012, in which there were certain defects as pointed by the Registry immediately after filing of the contempt petition. The said defects have not been removed by the petitoner in these three years. It is how the instant contempt petition came up before us for appropriate orders.

2. What appears to us is that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the instant contempt petition.

Dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P.Bhatt, J.) dey