Patna High Court

Kameshwar Singh and orsversusThe State of Bihar and Ors

Decided: 16 February 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: AJIT KUMAR

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Summary

Petitioners Kameshwar Singh and others filed a contempt petition against the State of Bihar and its officials, alleging that the State had not complied with a prior direction of this Court. The State argued that all necessary orders had been passed and there was nothing left for adjudication. The petitioners contended that their claim had been rejected and they should be allowed to challenge that decision. The Court examined the submissions and held that the contempt petition could be disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to seek any appropriate legal remedy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue further relief.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed on the ground that the State has complied with the Court's direction
Whether the petitioners are entitled to liberty to approach a suitable remedy after dismissal

Subjects

contempt
civil writ
environment and forest department
high court
petition
liberty to appeal

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.593 of 2019
                                          In
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21464 of 2014
     ======================================================
1.    Kameshwar Singh and ors Son of Late Jamindar Singh, resident of Village
      Bajitpur, Police Station Sanjhauli, District Rohtas at Sasram, President,
      District- Labour Union (Forest), Rohtas.
2.   Sudarshan Paswan, Son of Bhuneshwari Paswan, resident of Village
     Mahuwari, Police Station Nokha, Bagaula, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
3.   Vijay Ram, Son of Somaru Ram, resident of Village Samari, Police Station
     Shiv Sagar District Rohtas at Sasaram.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus

1.   The State of Bihar and Ors through the Principal Secretary, Shri Tripurari
     Saran, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   Shri Tripurari Saran, Son of name not known, Principal Secretary,
     Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   Shri Rajesh Jha, Son of name not known, Joint Secretary, Environment and
     Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4.   Shri Ekendra Kumar Ghask, Son of name not known the Deputy Secretary,
     Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5.   Shri S.K. Shukla, Son of name not known, the Principal chief Conservator of
     Forest, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6.   Shri Shri D.K. Shukla, son of name not Known, the Regional Chief
     Conservator of Forest, Environment and Forest Department, Government of
     Bihar, Patna.
7.   Shri N.K. Chaudhary, son of name not known, the District Magistrate,
     Kaimur at Bhabua.
8.   Shri Pankaj Dixit, Son of name not known, the District Magistrate, Rohtas at
     Sasaram.
9.   Shri S. Goswami, Son of name not known, District Fisheries Officer, Rohtas
     Forest Division, Sasaram.
10. Shri Satyajeet Singh, Son of name not Known, the District Forest Officer,
    Kaimur at Bhabua.

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Punam Kumari, Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s :    Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh (AAG-13)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                           ORAL ORDER
           Patna High Court MJC No.593 of 2019(6) dt.16-02-2026
                                                       2/2




6    16-02-2026                       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                  2. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

                     necessary orders in terms of the direction issued by this Court

                     has been passed and nothing survives for adjudication.

                                  3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

                     petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner has been rejected,

                     therefore, liberty may be restored to challenge the same.

                                  4. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed

                     of with liberty to the petitioner to take such remedy appropriate

                     in law.



                                                   (Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…