Patna High Court - Orders
Prafull Chandra Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 January, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Patna High Court MJC No.2592 of 2015 (7) dt.18-01-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2015
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15926 of 2012
=====================================
Prafull Chandra Singh
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
.... .... Respondent/s
=====================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mrs. Shashi Priya Pathak, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Shilpa Singh, G.A. 12
For O.P. No. 5 : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Adv.
=====================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 18-01-2017Heard the parties.
In the light of an order, dated 21.09.2016, Mr. R.B. Chaudhary, opposite party No. 5, has filed his show- cause reply.
Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, has submitted that the order, dated 21.04.2015, passed by Mr. R.B. Chaudhary, cannot be said to be in strict complaicne of this Court's order, dated 01.08.2014, whereby, he was directed to act in accordance with memo No. 189 P, dated 28.05.2012. He has submitted that this has happened because of typographical error in the order, dated Patna High Court MJC No.2592 of 2015 (7) dt.18-01-2017 01.08.2014, wherein, while describing the communication in place of memo No. 189 P, dated 28.05.2012, memo No. 185 P, dated 28.05.2012, has been typed.
From the said order, it appears that there is specific reference to memo No. 189 P, dated 28.05.2012, at several places, and in such circumstance the plea that the order could not be implemented strictly because of the typographical error, is not acceptable. The order was to be passed in accordance with memo No. 189 P, dated 28.05.2012. The said opposite party No. 5, Mr. R.B. Chaudhary, is said to have retired from his post and in his place new incumbent, Mr. Rajeev Prasad Singh Ranjan, is working. The Court would like to know as to whether the present incumbent intends to rectify the wrong committed by Mr. R.B. Chaudhary, opposite party No. 5. If the wrong committed by Mr. R.B. Chaudhary, opposite party No. 5, is not corrected by the present incumbent, the Court will consider initiating contempt proceeding against him.
Put up this matter, under the same heading, on 02.02.2017.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/-
U