Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DAILYLAW 1326 (PAT)

Kapildev Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar

MJC/1853/2021 · 2026-03-12

Rajiv Roy

Public Interest Litigationbody2021

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1853 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13945 of 2014 ====================================================== Kapildev Prasad Yadav, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Musaharnia, P.S.-Sour Bazar, District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sri Chandrashekhar Singh, The Director Panchayti Raj, Bihar New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Sri Nitin Kumar Singh, The District Development Commissioner, Zila Parishad, Dist-Madhepura. 4. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh (the than) The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, Dist-Madhepura. 5. Sri Nitin Kumar Singh, The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, District- Madhepura. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay (Ga 5) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, AC-GA For Zila Parishad : Mrs. Sunita Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 3 12-03-2026 Heard the parties. 2. The present application has been preferred for: “issuance of rule of contempt against the Opp. Parties for suitable convict them for disobeying the order dt. 30.07.2019 passed in CWJC No. 13945/2014 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad by Patna High Court MJC No.1853 of 2021(3) dt.12-03-2026 2/2 which disposed of with lib -erty to the petitioner to approach before the Respondent No. 4, claim of the petitioner has to be considered subject to Rule/Scheme applicable to the respondent Parishad and fur ther initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties to breach of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 30.07.2019.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous and as such, he may be permitted to withdrawn the petition. 4. Accordingly, MJC No. 1853 of 2021 stands dismissed as withdrawn. atul/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U