Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar, Through District ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1599 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2809 of 2018
======================================================
Pramod Kumar Thakur Son of Late Sonelal Thakur Resident of Mohiuddin
Nagar (South) P.O. and P.S. - Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through District Magistrate Samastipur.
2. Sri Shashank Shubhankar, District Magistrate, Samastipur.
3. Md. Zafar Alam, Sub Divisional Officer, Patori, Samastipur.
4. Pramod Kumar Ranjan, circle Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar, Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar (SC 11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 06-08-2025
The present M.J.C. contempt is arising out of
order dated 10.05.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of
2018.
2. Petitioner has initiated encroachment
Patna High Court MJC No.1599 of 2021 dt.06-08-2025
2/5
proceedings in the year 2016. There was inaction on the
part of the official respondents. Resultantly, he had filed
C.W.J.C. No. 2809 of 2018 and it was decided on
10.05.2019
with the following observation :-
" For the present, we while taking notice of
the pending encroachment case as well as the
title suit, would leave it at the wisdom of the
Circle Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar, Samastipur to
take the encroachment case to its logical
conclusion within a period of 3 months of
receipt/production of copy of this order unless,
there is any order passed in the pending Title Suit
No. 45 of 2015 which precludes him or restrains
him from doing so."
3. It is undisputed that there is no prohibitory
order insofar as subject land in the Title Suit No. 45 of
2015. Therefore, there was no hurdle for the competent
authority to complete the encroachment case within a
period of 03 months as directed by the co-ordinate
Bench. On the other hand, encroachment case was
dropped by the competent authority on 18.07.2025.
There is no application on behalf of the official respondent
Patna High Court MJC No.1599 of 2021 dt.06-08-2025
seeking extension of time fixed by the co-ordinate Bench
in its order dated 10.05.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No.
2809 of 2018. On the other hand, they slept over the
matter. Even after, filing contempt petition in the year
2021, they have opened their eyes only in the month of
July, 2025 to conclude the encroachment case.
Encroachment case was dropped on account of the
alleged fact that Jamabandi stands in the name of person
who is occupying the subject land. The circle officer is
stated to have undertaken certain exercise for
cancellation of Jamabandi.
4. Be that as it may. The official respondent are
not complying the orders of this Court in true spirit. This
is not an isolated case we have come across in umpteen
number of contempt cases. In other words, invariably,
state official respondents expect orders of this Court were
required to be implemented only after filing contempt of
court petitions and certain adverse orders are passed.
This attitude of the official respondents are deprecated.
Patna High Court MJC No.1599 of 2021 dt.06-08-2025
The competent authority/disciplinary authority to such of
those persons who are responsible for delaying and
completing the encroachment case shall be subjected to
disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same within a
reasonable period of 06 months from the date of receipt
of this order.
5. The disciplinary authority/appointing authority
shall strictly adhere to the relevant disciplinary regulation
rules and after providing due ample opportunity of
hearing to the concerned employee/official.
6. There is no supervision and control by
supervising authority insofar as follow up cases of the
Courts, where the official respondents were required to
implement timely. This has resulted in administrative
chaos in the State administration. Recently, Hon'ble
Supreme Court made observations like public institutions
must handle cases diligently; State must have interval
mechanisms to monitor pending litigations, in the case of
Odisha State Financial Corporation vs. Vigyan
Patna High Court MJC No.1599 of 2021 dt.06-08-2025
Chemical Industries & Ors., reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 772.
7. Having regard to the aforementioned
development, the present contempt proceedings stands
dropped with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees).
The cost shall be paid to the petitioner by the official
respondent - Pramod Kumar Ranjan ( Circle Officer,
Mohiuddin Nagar, Samastipur).
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
