Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3090 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ranjit Kumar Thakur S/O Deo Chandra Thakur Resident Of Village Ruchaul, Police Station Sadar, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 2. Jai Narayan Yadav S/O Ravi Nandan Yadav Resident Of Village Phulthua, Police Station Simri, District Darbhanga. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known the Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad S/O Not Known the Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Vyash Jee S/O Not Known the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3127 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Kumar Roy S/O Sripati Lal Roy R/O Vill-Gousa, P.S.-Sadar Darbhanga, Distt-Darbhanga Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad S/O Not Known The Director-In-Chief, Health Services , Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee S/O Not Known The Principal Secretary, Health Department , Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2970 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anirudh Pd. S/O Yamunna Mahto Resident Of Village- Mohan Khanda, P.S- Harnaut, District- Nalanda (Bihar) Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Amarjeet Singh, The Principal Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director In Chief, Health Service Bihar, Patna. 4. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, The Civil Surgeon-Cum- Chief Medical Office, Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 2 /22 with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3909 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Mannu Prasad S/O Sri Nageshwar Prasad R/O Vill. Milkipur, P.S. Noor Sarai, Distt. - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Commissioner - Cum - Secretary, Department Of Health, New Secretariat, Patna Namely Sri Vyas Ji S/O Not Known To The Petitioner 2. Sri Surendra Prasad S/O Not Known, Director - In - Chief, Department Of Health, New Secretariat, Patna 3. Md. Sahr Jaha Khan S/O Not Known, Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2949 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Arun Kumar Singh S/O Kishori Ramautar Singh R/O Village- Bharauli, P.S.- Sonbarsa Kachahari, District- Saharsa 2. Ramrup Prasad Yadav S/O Late Rasik Lal Yadav R/O Village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Amarjeet Singh, The Principal Secretary Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director-In-Chief Health Services, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Madhepura .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3634 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Mahadeo Sah S/O Sri Shiv Shankar Sah R/O Village - Selara, Police Station - Jainagar, District - Madhubani 2. Shiv Shankar Prasad S/O Sri Ram Sharan Prasad R/O Village - Korhiya, Police Station Jainagar, District - Madhubani Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Office, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Heath Department, Bihar, Patna Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 3 /22 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3959 of 2012 ====================================================== Krit Narayan Thakur S/O Late Kamla Kant Thakur Resident Of Village- Mahrail, P.S- Andhrathharhi, District- Madhubani. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s
Legal Reasoning
1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O not known the Civil Surgeon- Cum- Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad S/O not known the Director In Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Vyas Jee S/O not known the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3860 of 2012 ====================================================== Prahlad Kumar S/O Late Sita Ram Singh Resident Of Village- Khaira, Kala, P.O- Kuhila, P.S- Akbarpur, District- Nawadah. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Viyas Jee, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director- In- Chief Health, Service, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 4. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, The Regional Deputy Director Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. Dr. Madheshwar Prasad Sharma, The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Nawadah .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3678 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Kumar Pandey S/O Sri Mahabir Pandey R/O Village - Akbarpur, Police Station Naubatpur, District - Patna Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Lakhindra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Patna 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Heath Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 4 /22 Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3214 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Braj Kishore Pd. S/o Late Sukh Ram Yadav 2. Prem Chandra Prem S/o late Raghunandan Yadav 3. Shiv Narayan Yadav S/o Lal Ram Phal Yadav. All are resident of village Sunder Birajit, P.S. Madhepur, Dist. Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Versus Patna 3. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 4. Dr. Dipak Verma, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Jhanjharpur, Dist. Madhubani. 5. Dr. Sanjay Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Sub Division Hospital, Jhanjharpur, Dist-Madhubani. 6. Dr. Ramasharay Prasad Sing, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Khajouli, Dist-Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3642 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Bhagwan Mishra S/O Late Harishchandra Mishra R/O Village - Nawada, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga 2. Bishwanath Jha S/O Sri Ramanita Jha R/O Village - Nawada, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga 3. Arun Kumar Mishra S/O Sri Ramakant Mishra R/O Village - Konthudih, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga 4. Vidhata Devi W/O Premchand Mishra R/O Village - Nawada, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surenddra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3643 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Binod Mishra S/O Sri Sukhnam Mishra R/O Village - Kanthudih, Police Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 5 /22 Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga 2. Pawan Kumar Rai S/O Late Nand Kishore Rai R/O Village - Singhiya, Police Station - Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3756 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ramesh Kumar aged about 46 years S/O Rudal Prasad R/O Village - Lautan Chapra, P.S. Sakara, Distt. - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through the Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Sudhir Kumar, The Civil Surgeon - Cum – Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, North Bihar .... ....Contemnors/opposite party ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3797 of 2012 ====================================================== Dukh Haran Kumar aged about 43 years son of Late Ram Briksha Mahto, resident of village –Rampur Parori (East), P.S. Sitamarhi Town, Dist. Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director-in-Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Sudhir Kumar, The Civil Surgeon - Cum – Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, North Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3097 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Rabindra Mishra S/O Sri Gulab Mishra Resident Of Village- Chauri, P.S- Sakari, District- Darbhanga. 2. Navin Kumar Mishra S/O Late Surendra Nath Mishra Resident Of Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 6 /22 Village- Gangduar, Police Station- Sakari, District- Madhubani. 3. Md. Wakil Ahmad S/O Late Sabir Khan Resident Of Village- Mominpur, Police Station- Sakari, District- Madhubani. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O not known, the Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad S/O not know The Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Vyas Jee S/O not known The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4893 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ramesh Bhagat Son Of Shyamanand Bhagat Village Bisfi Simari P.S. Simri District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sri Sanjay Kumar The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Health, Government Of Bihar, Bihar , Patna 2. Sri Surendra Prasad at present holding … at The Director Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Government Of Bihar , Patna 3. Dr. Rameshwar Safi The Regional Deputy Director Of Health, Darbhanga Division Darbhanga 4. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3091 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Dewashish Ghosh S/O Late Anil Chandra Ghosh Resident Of Village Rasiyari, Police Station Ghanshyampur, District Darbhanga. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani. 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad S/O Not Known The Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. Sri Vyas Jee S/O Not Known The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3477 of 2012 Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 7 /22 ====================================================== 1. Yugeshwar Pal S/O Late Dahu Pal R/O Village - Balbhadrapur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3478 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Kant Jha S/O Sri Upendra Jha R/O Village - Chikana, Police Station - Ghoghardiha, District - Madhubani Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son of not Known, The Director - In - Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3479 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Sudhira Devi W/O Sri Ram Lakhan Mishra R/O Village - Navtol, P.S. R.S. Sivir, Jhanjharpur, District - Madhubani Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha Son Of Not Known, The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani 3. Dr. Surendra Prasad Son Of Not Known, The Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna 4. Sri Vyas Jee Son Of Not Known, The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3524 of 2012 ====================================================== Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 8 /22 1. Sanjeeb Kumar Jha Aged About 45 Years S/O Late Parmanand Jha Resident Of Mohalla Mishar Tola, P.S. Town Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through The Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director In Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. Dr. Sudhir Kuamr, The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, North Bihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4086 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Rakesh Kumar S/O Sri Bindeshwar Sharma R/O Village - Kauri, P.O. Dabiya, P.S. Paliganj, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Vyash Ji, Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad, Director - In - Chief, Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Rajendra Kumar, Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. Dr. Shobha Sinha, Civil Surgeon - Cum – Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad 5. Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer, Arwal 6. Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, In Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karpi in the District Of Arwal 7.Mangey Ram, In - Charge Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Kinjar In The District Of Arwal 8. Mangey Ram, Additional Primary Health Centre, Kinjar In The District Of Arwal .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4163 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Krishna Kumar Bhargav S/O Late Dwarika Prasad R/O Vill.- Belap, P.S. Sheikhpura, Distt.- Sheikhpura 2. Subodh Kumar S/O Sri Nandu Ram R/O Ambedkar Nagar, Sandalpur Colony, P.S.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna. 3. Ganauri Prasad S/O Late Ram Prasad Rai R/O Vill.- Saidpura, Kurarai, P.S. Nagarnausa, Distt.- Nalanda 4. Jageshwar Prasad S/O Ram Bhajan Ram R/O Vill.- Ghordaur, P.S.- Lakharia, Distt.- Patna Versus .... .... Petitioner/s Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 9 /22 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Bhanu Pratap Sharma, Principal Secretary Health Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, Director In Chief Health Services, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. Dr. Harendra Prasad Shrivastava, The Regional Deputy Director Health Services, Patna Division, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3213 of 2012 ====================================================== Baidyanath Pd. Yadav S/o Rasik Lal Yadav Resident of Village-Chapram, P.S. Madhepur, Dist. Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Surendra Prasad, the Director In Chief Health Services, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Dr. Krishandeo Prasad Singh the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Supaul. 4. Dr. Ram Prasad Mehta, In-charge Medical officer, Primary Health Centre, Nirmal, District Supaul. .... .... Respondent/s ===================================================== = Appearance : (In MJC No.3090 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay Aag12 (In MJC No.3127 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha Aag2 (In MJC No.2970 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha Gp19 (In MJC No.3909 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Kant Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad Gp7 (In MJC No.2949 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh Sc5 (In MJC No.3634 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri Aag11 (In MJC No.3959 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Ms. Neelu Agrwal Ga6 (In MJC No.3860 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra Sc21 (In MJC No.3678 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girija Shankar Pd Gp1 Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 10 /22 (In MJC No.3214 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amar Nath Deo Sc26 (In MJC No.3642 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri Aag11 (In MJC No.3643 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karn Aag4 (In MJC No.3756 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty For the Respondent/s : Ms. Namrta Mishra Gp17 (In MJC No.3797 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri Aag11 (In MJC No.3097 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr No.2 Ga5 (In MJC No.4893 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra Sc21 (In MJC No.3091 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishor Aag1 (In MJC No.3477 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr No.1 Sc12 (In MJC No.3478 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha Aag15 (In MJC No.3479 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat Gp13 (In MJC No.3524 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajoy Kumar Chakraborty For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha Aag15 (In MJC No.4086 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi Aag14 (In MJC No.4163 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganjanan Arun Mr. Manoj Kr. Upadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp4) (In MJC No.3213 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad Aag9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10 29-04-2013 This batch of contempt applications, with the consent Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 11 /22 of the parties, have been clubbed together as common facts is/are involved. They have, thus, been heard together. Present order will govern them. In these contempt applications, a grievance has been raised that common order dated 6.10.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 ( Om Prakash vs. State of Bihar) and analogous writ petitions has been wilfully/deliberately disobeyed by the opposite parties and as such they be adequately punished therefor. Heard Sri Tarakant Jha, learned senior counsel assisted by various counsels on behalf of the petitioners and Sri D.K.Sinha, AAG-2 for the State and its functionaries. For the sake of convenience, this Court would notice only the broad facts emerging from the case(s). Petitioners are said to have earlier moved this Court in writ jurisdiction against termination of their service(s). Several writ petitions raising the similar grievance were also filed. By a proceeding dated 26.6.2006, the case of the petitioners were directed to be scrutinized/examined by five men enquiry committee. The said order is reported in (2003)4 PLJR 282 (Sitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar). While doing so, the order(s) of termination was/were set aside and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated without salary. State respondents, Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 12 /22 aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed writ appeal(s). Those appeals were disposed of noticing therein that the five men committee, on verification, found 358 appointments to be forged, appointment of 228 persons were held illegal, no records of 245 persons was/were produced. 91 persons were, however, held to be irregularly appointed. While rejecting the claims of those persons whose appointments were found forged and illegal and in respect whereof no record was available and produced. Cases of 91 persons whose appointments were found irregular were directed to be considered for regularization as per order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uma Devi case reported in 2006(4) SCC 1. Unsuccessful persons including the petitioners filed another round of litigation by filing writ petitions. Altogether 319 writ applications were filed in this Court. By a common order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure-1) (since reported in 2009(4) PLJR 690) their termination were held not sustainable in law and they were directed to be reinstated with back wages. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order State respondents filed several writ appeal(s). A division bench of this Court by order dated 11.2.2010 ( since reported in 2010(2) PLJR 397) disposed of those appeal(s). The effect of the order appealed against was nullified and the legality of appointment of each of the respondents (writ petitioner(s)) were directed to be scrutinized by One man committee headed by Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 13 /22 Justice (Retd.) Shri Uday Sinha. The present batch of cases are those cases in which one man committee, on scrutiny/verification, rejected their claim. The petitioners have not challenged the said order passed by the writ appeal Court. Mr. Jha, learned senior counsel submitted that true it is that the common order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the writ appeal Court in LPA No. 1623 of 2009 and analogous matters has not been challenged by the petitioners but from the facts brought on record it would appear that identical issues are pending consideration before this Court or before the Apex Court and as such the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered by the opposite parties and on account of failure thereof they have rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted and punished. It is next submitted that some of the persons similarly situate have been reinstated in service pending final decision whereas the petitioners have not been favoured with such order. The State in such matter cannot make hostile discrimination and as such opposite parties have qualified themselves for being punished for wilful/deliberate disregard of the order passed on the writ petition(s). Mr. Jha, in this regard, has relied on the case of S. Rammu vs. Union of India & Ors. 1986 PLJR SC 29. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 14 /22 State pointed out that from bare perusal of the order dated 11.2.10 (since reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 397) it would appear that the order passed by the writ Court was nullified and the matter was referred to the One man committee constituted under the said
Decision
order to scrutinize the cases of the writ petitioners (respondents). The one man committee, on scrutiny , rejected their claim(s). The petitioners have not challenged either the order passed by the writ appeal Court or the conclusion(s)/report(s) of the One man committee. In the eye of law the order passed by the writ Court for compliance whereof the present batch of contempt applications have been filed stands nullified/effaced. If that be so, how a contempt application be filed and maintained for non compliance of the writ order. It is next submitted that subsequent to the disposal of said batch of writ appeal(s) other writ appeals were also filed by the State and this Court by different order(s) dated 23.3.2010 and 19.4.2010 passed an order in line with the order dated 11.2.2010 passed in batch of these writ appeals. However, some of the writ appeal(s) preferred by the State were considered by this Court and vide order dated 29.3.2011, those four appeals have been dismissed. Said order is reported in 2011(3) PLJR 547. Aggrieved thereby the State respondents have filed four Civil Review applications being Civil Review Nos. 164,165,166 and 182 of 2011. Those matters were taken up and consideration Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 15 /22 thereof has been deferred until disposal of identical issues/matters raised before and under consideration of the Apex Court. In the meanwhile, another set of writ appeals of State respondents were dismissed by another bench of this Court on different dates. The State respondents have filed Special Leave Petition(s) before Hon’ble Apex Court which is/are pending consideration. Notices have already been issued and the respondents have appeared. Three Special Leave Petitions preferred by the private respondents were filed before the Hon’ble Court alleging therein that the order passed on the writ appeals was/were without their consent. Those SLP(s), in the light of the said submissions, have been remanded to the appellate Court for consideration on merit. (Annexure A series of the supplementary affidavit).Rest of the cases have been dismissed by the Apex Court and the petitioners thereof appeared before the one man committee and on scrutiny their claim for appointment has been rejected by the said committee. Some of the writ appeals filed by the State respondents have been heard by a division bench of this Court. Hearing in those matters have concluded and order is awaited . It is next submitted that one writ petition being CWJC No. 267 of 2010 raising the similar issue was referred by the writ Court to division bench. The division bench has disapproved the appointment of the writ petitioners and the relief has been denied. Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 16 /22 Four writ applications raising identical issues were referred to full bench. Two of the matters have been decided against the petitioners (appointees). Rest of the matters have also been decided against the petitioners ( appointees) who constitute the lot to which the contempt petitioners belonged to. Said order is reported in 2013(1) PLJR 964. Sri Sinha, has drawn attention of the Court to diverse paragraphs of the said order. It is also stated that several contempt applications of the petitioners who belong to present category of contempt applications have already been dismissed. Several such applications have been withdrawn by the petitioners thereof. Summing up his arguments it has been reiterated that from perusal of the order passed by the division bench on 11.2.2010 on the writ appeals preferred in the case of contempt petitioners it would appear that the order passed by the writ Court no longer exists. In fact, it has been nullified and as such the present contempt application alleging non compliance of the order passed by the writ Court is/are fit to be dismissed with cost. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials appearing from the records. The writ application filed by the petitioners herein came to be disposed of by a common order dated 6.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous writ petitions (Annexure- Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 17 /22 1). The following directions was issued by the writ Court:- report “All these are the reasons for which the dated impugned enquiry 31.12.2008 is quashed. The writ applications in which termination orders have been issued by the Civil Surgeon or any other authorities, those letters are also quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post, they were working. Their reinstatement will be with effect from termination with all the date of consequential benefits.” their Aggrieved by the said order writ appeals were filed in the case(s) of the petitioners and others. A division of this Court disposed of those appeals on 11.2.2010. Paragraph no. 8 thereof is extracted hereinbelow:- to after General 8.Regard being had the concession given by Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned obtaining Advocate instructions from the competent authorities of the State and the concession given by the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, we proceed to record the terms and conditions which would form spine of the present order. The terms and conditions in seriatim are as follows:- a) The directions contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which the present appeals are preferred would stand nullified. (b) A one man committee of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court shall look into the various facets of nature of appointments that were given to the writ petitioners with a view to adjudicate their appointments and legality of the continuance in service. (c) The committee shall hold its sittings in the building situate in House No.42, Harding Road, Patna. Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 18 /22 three copies before (d) The State Government shall provide the committee with a secretariat consisting of a Secretary (not below the rank of Joint Secretary of the State cadre) and also sufficient number of stenographers (not less than five) as also three orderly peons who may be engaged on contract basis. (e) One man committee shall be provided with all the facilities in terms of salary and perks that are made available to the sitting Judge of a High Court minus the amount of monthly pension. (f) One man committee shall make its all endeavours to decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of commencement of its first sitting. The committee shall fix its first of hearing in the 3rd week of March, 2010. (g) The employee-writ petitioners shall file their individual written brief synopsis of their cases along with the connected the in documents committee on the first date or any adjourned date as determined by the committee. The State Government shall also file three copies of written individual rejoinder along with the documents sought to be relied within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid written brief synopsis or within such extended period as directed by the one man Committee. (h) Additionally the State Government shall other furnish document/information as directed by one man committee so that the whole issue of legality of the appointment of the employee writ petitioner is assessed and decided by it in an objective manner for once and all. (i) The one man committee shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and in course of such hearing it would be open to the affected employee writ petitioners to satisfy the said committee that his/her appointment was tenable in law and there was/is no reason to unsettle his/her appointment. (j) It would also be open to the also any Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 19 /22 employee-writ petitioners to demonstrate and establish before the said one man committee that his/her case is similar to those of the persons who have been retained and/or reinstated in service in the wake of the screening committee the report of headed by the Director-in-Chief of Health Department constituted in terms of the earlier directions of this court in the order dated 26.6.2006 in L.P.A. no. 946 of 2003 (State of Bihar Vs. Purendra Sulan Kit) and its analogous cases, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386. (k) Neither the State Government nor the employee writ petitioners however shall be permitted to refer to and/or rely on any of the findings recorded by any of the Enquiry Committee earlier before the one man committee. (l) The other modalities of scrutiny of individual appointment of the employee- writ petitioners on the basis of documentary evidence to be led by both the parties would be decided by the one man committee. (m) The employees who have been working and getting the benefit of pay till the date of filing writ petition shall not be dislodged from the service pending enquiry and passing of the final order by the committee. (n) The employees whose joining has been accepted by the competent authority pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge may attend the office and do their duties but shall not draw the pay and their pay shall be given only after the matter is finalized by one man committee. (o) All other employees writ petitioners terminated from service would be reinstated only in case the committee records finding in their favour holding their appointment and continuation in service to be legal. the employees writ (p) Such of petitioners who would continue in service during the enquiry proceedings before the one man committee would be entitled for payment of salary the pendency of Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 20 /22 from the date of this order and till passing of the final order by the one man committee even if the committee would not approve their initial appointment and continuation in service. (q) If either of the parties is adversely affected by the decision of the committee in any manner, it would be open for them to assail the same before the appropriate legal forum. (9)The appeals are accordingly disposed of on the aforesaid agreed terms. There is no controversy at Bar that in the light of the said order passed by the appellate Court the petitioners herein appeared before the One man committee constituted by the said order to adjudicate upon the legality of their appointment. On scrutiny /verification/enquiry, their appointment in the service have been held to be either forged or illegal. Their terminations were thus held valid. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while admitting the aforesaid facts, has urged that several matters of identical nature are pending consideration either before this Court or before the Apex Court. While these matters are pending the opposite parties have reinstated some of the persons similarly situate in service subject to result of the pending litigation(s) whereas the said privilege/relief has not been granted to the petitioners. They have, thus, been subjected to hostile discrimination . Even in cases at hand some of them have been reinstated. This differential treatment at the hands of the opposite parties would constitute contempt and as such, they are liable to be Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 21 /22 proceeded against and punished. In a proceeding of contempt, the Court is required to execute the order and in case it is found that the opposite parties have wilfully/deliberately obstructed in compliance /implementation thereof then to proceed to punish them in accordance with law. It is seen here that the order passed on the writ petition(s) was/were appealed against by the opposite parties. Once an appeal is preferred, normally, the contempt Court becomes loath in proceeding with the matter towards implementation/execution of the order. In the cases at hand, the writ appeals have already been disposed of in the manner noticed hereinabove on 11.2.2010. The common order passed by the writ Court has been nullified. The petitioner(s) appeared before the One man committee. On scrutiny/enquiry their appointments have been held invalid/illegal. If that be so, then how a contempt proceeding could be maintained alleging disobedience of the order passed by the writ Court. Sri Jha, in support of his contention of differential treatment meted out to the petitioners of the contempt applications has relied on S. Rammu (supra). I have perused the said order. In my view, said judgment was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in entirely different factual context. Moreover, said contention may be a relevant consideration Patna High Court MJC No.3090 of 2012 (10) dt.29-04-2013 Page 22 /22 while invoking plenary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Those submissions of the petitioners are, therefore, fit to be rejected. In a proceeding of contempt this Court is required to examine whether the order passed on the writ petition subsists and the opposite parties have wilfully/deliberately acted in disobedience of the said order. It is agreed at Bar that by a common order dated 6.10.2009 passed on the writ petition(s) has been nullified in expressed terms by the writ appellate Court. The legality of the appointment of the respondents were directed to be scrutinized /verified /adjudicated upon by a one man committee headed by a retired judge of this Court . The said committee , on scrutiny/verification , found their appointment either forged and/or illegal. In these attending facts, how this Court can hold the opposite parties guilty of having wilfully/deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the writ Court . Considering the aforesaid facts luminescent from the records and the submissions of the parties, this Court finds no merit in these contempt applications. They are, accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s). (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-