Patna High Court - Orders
Jagdish Pd. vs Sri Uday Singh Kumawat I.A.S. on 12 November, 2014
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.220 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4307 of 2006
======================================================
1. Jagdish Prasad Son of Late Ram Dutt Prasad, Resident of Village-
Dudhiya, P.O.- Akhilpur (Digha), P.S.- Akhilpur (Danapur), District- Patna
(Bihar) At Present Residing At Qtr. No. A/4, Bhuli Township, Village And
P.O.- Bhuli, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sri Uday Singh Kumawat, I.A.S., Chairman-Cum- Managing Director
Now Re-Designated As Administrative Officer, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001
2. Sri R.P. Kanth, Chief Accounts Officer (P.F.) Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-
800001
3. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation, Bankipur, Patna- 800001
4. Sri A.K. Singh, Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund,
Regional Officer, 'R' Block, Patna
5. The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Munna Prasad Dixit, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
2 12-11-2014This contempt application has been filed praying for drawing proceedings against the respondent-Corporation and its officials for not ensuring compliance of the order passed on 18.5.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 4307 of 2006.
This Court while disposing of the said writ petition had reminded the respondents of their obligation to make payments of the admissible dues of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the proceedings pending before 2 Patna High Court MJC No.220 of 2014 (2) dt.12-11-2014 2/2 the Apex Court.
Though the petitioner has filed the present contempt application but there is nothing on record to demonstrate what obligation has Corporation failed to discharge and what was the direction of the Supreme Court.
In the circumstances no case for proceeding in the contempt application is made out at this stage and this application is accordingly disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/-
U