IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.850 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4494 of 2016 ====================================================== Devendra Ray, S/o Shri Gena Ray, Resident of Village - Mohiuddinpur Garari, P.S. - Jandaha, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Mr. K.D. Tripathy, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar, the General Manager, Bharat Petroleum Coroporation LImited, Eastern Region, Bharat Bhawan, Kolkatta. 3. Mr. Uttam Minz, the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Sipara, P.O. and at Pakri, Patna TOP, Patna. 4. Mr. Nirmal Kumar, the Regional Manager, B.P.C.L. Patna. 5. The State of Bihar through Mrs. Udita Singh, The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG- 5) Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG-5 For the BPCL : Mr. Sidharth Prasad, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 19-08-2026 The present contempt petition has been preferred for willful disobedience of the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4494 of 2016 whereby the proposed contemnor has been directed to take decision in the matter if the Petitioner provides alternative site viable for the business. 2. As per learned counsel for the Petitioner, in compliance of the writ order, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 15.12.2017 making representation to the proposed contemnor Patna High Court MJC No.850 of 2020(2) dt.19-08-2026 2/2 submitting documents of alternative site for his consideration and compliance of the writ order but despite his representation, he has not complied with the order of the writ court. Hence, he has committed contempt. 3. However, learned counsel for the proposed contemnor takes preliminary objection that the present contempt petition is time barred. The maximum time prescribed for filing contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, is one year since the commission of the Contempt of Court but as per the Petitioner, the Contempt of Court has been committed by the proposed contemnor on 5.03.2018 but he has filed the present Contempt Petition on 28.02.2020, much beyond one year. 4. Hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed as time barred. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is seeking liberty to take alternative remedy, if available as per law. 6. Hence, the present petition is dismissed as time barred with liberty to the Petitioner, as sought for. Chandan/- (Jitendra Kumar, J.) U