Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rubby DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The Court restored liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order and disposed of the contempt petition.

Summary

The petitioners Rubby Devi, Dhiraj Kumar Singh and Ramesh Mahto filed a contempt petition against the State of Bihar and several education officials, seeking relief from an order dated 03‑08‑2022 (Memo No. 871) which they claimed had redressed their claim. The petitioners asked the Court to grant them liberty to challenge that order. The Court, after hearing counsel, held that the petitioners are entitled to seek appropriate legal remedy and restored liberty to challenge the order. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of. The order essentially allows the petitioners to pursue further challenge in accordance with law.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to liberty to challenge the order dated 03‑08‑2022 (Memo No. 871)
  • Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed

Subjects

  • contempt
  • writ jurisdiction
  • government order
  • liberty to appeal
  • civil procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1428 of 2019
                                                       In
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24418 of 2018
                 ======================================================
           1.     Rubby Devi W/o Pushplal Kunwar Resident of Village-Chintamanpur, P.O.
                  Chakiyan, P.S. Panapur, District-Saran at Chapra.
           2.    Dhiraj Kumar Singh Son of Shubh Narayan Singh Resident of Village-
                 Ramkola, P.O-Kamta, P.S.-Baniyapur, District-Saran at Chapra.
           3.    Ramesh Mahto Son of Late Nirgun Mahto Resident of Village-Methaura,
                 P.O.-Dubauli, P.S.-Panapur, District-Saran at Chapra.

                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar through Sri Deepak Kumar, aged about 59 years, male,
                 the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna
           2.    Sri R.K.Mahajan, the Principal Secretary Department of Education,
                 Government of Bihar, Patna.
           3.    Sri Kumar Ramanuj, the Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar,
                 Patna.
           4.    Ajay Kumar Chaudhary, the Director, Primary Education, Government of
                 Bihar, Patna.
           5.    Sri Subrata Sen, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra
           6.    Sri Jaychand Prasad Srivastava, the District Education Officer, Saran at
                 Chapra.
           7.    Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta, the District Programme Officer, (Mass Education),
                 Saran at Chapra.
           8.    Sri Lakhindra Paswan, the Block Education Officer, Panapur, District Saran
                 at Chapra.
           9.    Sri Binod Kumar Singh, the Block Education Officer, Baniyapur, District
                 Saran at Chapra.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :    Smt. Shilpa Singh (Ga12)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   18-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                2. Counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that

                   pursuant to the order passed by this Court, necessary order has
          Patna High Court MJC No.1428 of 2019(5) dt.18-02-2026
                                                      2/2




                    been passed, which is contained in Memo No.              871 dated

                    03.08.2022, by which the claim of the petitioners has been

                    redressed.

                                 3. Counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to

                    challenge the same.

                                 4. Liberty is restored for taking appropriate remedy as

                    is available in law.

                                 5. The contempt petition stands disposed of.



                                                                      (Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-

U


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.