Patna High Court
Syed Naushadun NabiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the respondents had duly complied with the direction and therefore the contempt application was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a contempt application alleging that the respondents had failed to comply with the direction dated 27 February 2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1117 of 2018, which required the disposal of a representation filed by the petitioner. The respondents, through a show‑cause affidavit, explained that they had examined the order, given the petitioner a hearing, and rejected the representation by an order dated 10 November 2025, communicating the same to the petitioner. The Court examined the affidavit, the order of rejection and the accompanying memorandum and concluded that the respondents had indeed complied with the High Court's earlier direction. Consequently, the Court found no ground for contempt. The Court disposed of the contempt application, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the order of the respondent authority if desired. All pending applications, if any, were also ordered to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Did the respondents comply with the direction of the High Court dated 27‑02‑2020 in L.P.A. No.1117 of 2018?
- Is the contempt application maintainable in view of the alleged non‑compliance?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- compliance with court order
- Letters Patent Appeal
- municipal authority
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.977 of 2025
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1117 of 2018
======================================================
Syed Naushadun Nabi Son of Late Syed Fakhrun Nabi, Resident of Mohalla-
Gagandewan Ward No 23, P.S. Bihar Sharif, District Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Barh Municipality through Sanjay Kumar, son of not known, Chairman
Barh Municipality, Barh and District Patna.
3. Sri Santosh Kumar Rajak, the Executive Officer, Barh Municipality, Barh
and District Patna.
4. Seem Nizami, Wife of Syed Badi Ashgar, Resident of Mohalla Salimpur,
Ward No. 9, P.O. and P.S.and Town Barh and District- Patna.
5. Surji Devi, Wife of Ram Parvesh Sao, Resident of Mohalla Walipur, P.O.,
P.S. and Town Barh and District Patna.
6. Rabiya Khatoon, widow of Late Amin Ahmad, (Original Petitioner No. 1)
Resident of Mohalla - Salimpur, Ward No. 12 (Old Ward No. 03), P.O. and
P.S. Barh, District- Patna.
7. Shamim Ahmad, Son of Late Amin Ahmad (deceased of Petitioner No.1)
Resident of Mohalla - Salimpur, Ward No. 12 (Old Ward No. 03), P.O. and
P.S. Barh, District- Patna.
8. Samin Ahmad, Son of Late Amin Ahmad Resident of Mohalla - Salimpur,
Ward No. 12 (Old Ward No. 03), P.O. and P.S. Barh, District- Patna.
9. Firoj Ahmad, Son of Late Amin Ahmad (deceased of Petitioner No. 1),
Resident of Mohalla - Salimpur, Ward No. 12 (Old Ward No. 03), P.O. and
P.S. Barh, District- Patna.
10. Nilofar, daughter of Late Amin Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla - Salimpur,
Ward No. 12 (Old Ward No. 03), P.O. and P.S. Barh, District- Patna.
11. Syed Fakher Ahsan, Son of Syed Rayaj Ahsan, Resident of Mohalla-
Salempur, Ward No. 21/10, P.O. and P.S. Barh, District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Barh Municipality: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Res. No. 5 : Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Patna High Court MJC No.977 of 2025(7) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
7 20-01-2026 The present contempt application has been preferred
against the order dated 27.02.2020 passed in L.P.A. No. 1117 of
2018, wherein a direction was given to the respondents to
dispose of the representation filed by the appellant/petitioner in
accordance with law.
2. A show-cause has been filed on behalf of the
opposite party no.3. Following statement has been made in
paragraph 9:-
9. That, in making compliance of the order
and direction passed by this Hon'ble
Court, the Deponent after giving
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner
and after examining the order and
direction passed by this Hon'ble Court
in Writ Petition as well as L.P.A. No.
1117 of 2018 and after perusing the
documents on records rejected the
representation of the Petitioner vide
order dated 10.11.2025 and copy of the
same has been duly communicated to
the Petitioner vide Memo No. 1621,
dated 10.11.2025.
3. In light of the statements, as referred above, and the
materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that
the directions issued by this Court have been duly complied
with and no further order is required to be passed in the present
contempt application.
Patna High Court MJC No.977 of 2025(7) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
4. Accordingly, the contempt application stands
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order
passed by the respondent authority, if so advised.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Rajesh/-
U
Checking your session…