Patna High Court
Laxmi Construction and Electricals WorksversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The Court held that the order dated 27‑02‑2017 had been complied with by the opposite parties, and therefore no contempt of court occurred.
Summary
The petitioner, Laxmi Construction and Electricals Works, filed a contempt application alleging that the Municipal Commissioner of Sasaram failed to comply with the High Court's direction dated 27‑02‑2017, which required a detailed show‑cause response and a subsequent order within three months. The petitioner submitted a show‑cause on 11‑03‑2017 and repeatedly approached the opposite party, but the Municipal Commissioner only filed a response on 03‑08‑2023 and issued a speaking order on 14‑07‑2023, rejecting the claim for release of a security deposit on the ground of an ongoing vigilance case. The Court examined whether the opposite parties had complied with the 2017 order and whether contempt proceedings were warranted. It concluded that the opposite parties had indeed complied by passing a reasoned order after considering the petitioner's representation. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to seek any further remedy in the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Did the opposite parties comply with the High Court's direction dated 27‑02‑2017 to consider the petitioner's show‑cause and pass an order within three months?
- Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the opposite parties for alleged non‑compliance?
- Whether the security deposit can be released despite an ongoing vigilance case against the petitioner.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- show cause notice
- security deposit
- vigilance investigation
- municipal corporation
- compliance with court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1882 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11933 of 2016
======================================================
Laxmi Construction and Electricals Works through its authorized signatory
namely Chandradeep Singh, Age, 32 years, Male, son of Late Girdhari Singh,
having Office at Ward No. 20, House No. 395 Laxmipur, Siwan Road, Police
Station- Siwan Sadar, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri Chaitanya Prasad, Principal Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. Sri Chaitanya Prasad The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban
Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, patna
3. Himani Kumari, The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Sasaram
4. The Police Superintendent-Cum-Station House, Head Vigilance Police
Station-6, Circular Road, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Kishore, Adv.
For the Municipality : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV ORDER
3 13-02-2026 This MJC application has been filed for initiation of
contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willful and
deliberate non-compliance/violation of the direction contained
in the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11933 of
2016 by this Court.
2. The operative portion of the order dated 27.02.2017
passed in CWJC No.11933 of 2016 is quoted here-in-below for
ready reference:
“In such view of the matter, petitioner is
Patna High Court MJC No.1882 of 2019(3) dt.13-02-2026
2/4
directed to file a detailed show
cause/additional show cause in addition to
show cause filed vide letter dated 11.2.2016
and if such show/additional show cause is
filed the Executive Officer, Sasaram, after
giving due notice to the parties will pass
order in accordance with law within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of the show cause.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioner filed
a detailed show cause/representation before the Opposite Party
No.3 on 11.03.2017 and thereafter approached the Opposite
Party No.3 several times but nothing has been done.
4. The Opposite Party No.3 has filed the show cause
on 03.08.2023. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam,
Sasaram, (Opposite Party No.3) has submitted in his show cause
that upon the notice having been issued to the petitioner in Misc.
Case No.01 of 2023, the petitioner appeared on 27.06.2023
before him and filed his written reply on behalf of the firm and
further sought time to place the documents. Thereafter, the
petitioner appeared and hearing was done in the aforesaid Misc.
Case. The petitioner firm claimed that an amount of
Rs.3,64,34,354/- has been paid to him as against the bill of
Rs.4,33,78,000/-. The petitioner claimed that his security
deposit has not been refunded even after completion of the work
Patna High Court MJC No.1882 of 2019(3) dt.13-02-2026
3/4
satisfactorily.
5. It appears that the Municipal Commissioner has
passed a speaking order on 14.07.2023 upon the representation
of the petitioner rejecting the claim of the petitioner observing
that the security deposit of the petitioner amounting to
Rs.43,37,800/- is lying with the office of Nagar Nigam,
however, a vigilance case is going on for misappropriation of
Rs.1,95,94,469/- against the petitioner’s firm. Since there is
allegation of misappropriation of public money and a vigilance
case is pending against the petitioner’s firm, it would not be
feasible to release the amount of security deposits in favour of
the petitioner and the same can be released only after the
disposal of vigilance case and, if required, it may be forfeited to
realize the mis-appropriated government money.
6. Having regard to the discussions made here-in-
above, this Court is of the view the order dated 27.02.2017
passed in CWJC No.11933 of 2016 has been complied by the
opposite parties by passing a reasoned order on the
representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, if feels
aggrieved, may take recourse of proper remedy in accordance
with law against the rejection of his claim before the appropriate
forum.
Patna High Court MJC No.1882 of 2019(3) dt.13-02-2026
4/4
7. This MJC application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
prabhat/-
U
Checking your session…