Deo Narayan Manjhi vs Mr. P.M. Prasad
2021 Latest Caselaw 1940 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Contempt (Civil) Case No. 201 of 2021

Deo Narayan Manjhi                        ....   ....       Petitioner
                          Versus
Mr. P.M. Prasad, C.M.D., Central Coal Field & Ors. .... .... Opp. Parties
                          ------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties-CCL : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate

Oral Order 03 / Dated : 18.06.2021

Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party-

C.C.L., has submitted before us that S.L.P. has already been preferred

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 12.02.2020

passed by this Court for non-compliance of which this present

proceeding has been drawn by the petitioner, however, learned counsel

for the opposite party-C.C.L. is not in a position to give the name and

number of the said S.L.P. and the exact date of filing.

It has been submitted by him that in fact there were two

Division Bench decisions of this Court which were contrary to our view

expressed in the order dated 12.02.2020 but unfortunately the same

could not be brought to our notice by the respondent CCL. It is

submitted that in view of those judgments they have moved before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

However, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, has submitted that the opposite parties are taking different

view in different matters as in one of the matters they have even

appointed the concerned person, as per the direction of this Court

subject to outcome of S.L.P. (C) No. 44421 of 2018 (Bipin Murmu) but

in the present case they have taken a different view and have moved

S.L.P. without complying the concerned order.

Accordingly, we are keeping this matter in the next week only

to know as to why the opposite party-C.C.L. has taken different views

in different matters and as such, whether it amounts to discrimination

and arbitrariness?

Let opposite party-C.C.L. reply on affidavit on or before the

next date of hearing.

However, since they are further required to give us the number

and date of filing of the concerned S.L.P. and the stay order, if any

obtained, and for that reason we are not proceeding further in this

proceeding, however, the question which has been raised by the

petitioner, as noted above, must be replied to by them.

Put up this matter on 25.06.2021.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

VK/AKT