2026:JHHC:457 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 68 of 2024 ----- Ramchandra Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Ganesh Sahu, R/o 24 G.T. Road, P.O. & P.S.-Dumri, District-Giridih .......... Petitioner -Versus- Sri Gopi Nath Behra, Senior Manager, GAIL (India) Limited, Hotel Veena Regency, near Solagidih Pond, Jodhadih More, Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro, now office at 5th Floor, Eastern Block, MECON Head Office, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi .......... Opp. Party ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Mr. Shobhakar Mishra, Advocate [through online mode] ----- Order No.09 Date: 09.01.2026 1. The present contempt case has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite party alleging wilful violation of the order dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2980 of 2022. 2. Mr. Shobhakar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, refers to paragraph no. 6 of the show cause affidavit dated 09.12.2025 filed on behalf of the Competent Authority for GAIL (India) Limited, which reads as under: “6. That Respondent no. 2 Namely Gopi Nath Behra has never received any representation from the petitioner. Also the representation was given to the General Manager who has not been made party in the instant case. That Competent Authority has given the section 3 and section 6 notice under the PMP Act, 1962 and released the payable amount. But Competent Authority has not been made party. That the petitioner has received the payable amount according to PMP Act 1962 on 04.03.2024 vide NEFT/BKIDY24064638062/SBIN/Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu.” 2026:JHHC:457 2 3. It is further submitted that the details of the payment made to the petitioner have been annexed as Annexure-E to the present show cause affidavit. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this court has now been complied. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the GAIL (India) Limited has already made payment of admitted amount to the petitioner for constructing gas pipeline over his land, there is no reason to further proceed in the present matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party is hereby dropped. 5. The present contempt case stands disposed of. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 09.01.2026 Vikas/