Cont.(Cvl)/493/2011 of ARUN PRATAP SINGH Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS on 21 December 2012

1. Neither the matter has been mentioned earlier nor anyone appears on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called out. behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called out.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the State, who has submitted that the present contempt petition has been by the petitioner for non-compliance of the order, which is at Annexure 1 to the contempt petition and the said order was passed by this Court on 1[st] July, 2008 in the writ petition, preferred by the very same petition along with other petitioners being W.P.(C) No. 6792 of 2002 and, in fact, no direction had been given in the said order and the petitioner was disposed of, being infructuous. present contempt petition has been by the petitioner for non-compliance of the order, which is at Annexure 1 to the contempt petition and the said order was passed by this Court on 1[st] July, 2008 in the writ petition, preferred by the very same petition along with other petitioners being W.P.(C) No. 6792 of 2002 and, in fact, no direction had been given in the said order and the petitioner was disposed of, being infructuous.

3. The following order was passed by this Court on 1[st] July, 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 6792 of 2002: “2/ 1.7.2008With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of as being infructuous. The petitioners are at liberty to move the authorities concerned, if so advised.” (C) No. 6792 of 2002: “2/ 1.7.2008With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of as being infructuous. The petitioners are at liberty to move the authorities concerned, if so advised.”

4. In view of the aforesaid order, this contempt petition is not tenable and hence the same is hereby dismissed. hence the same is hereby dismissed.

( D.N. Patel, J. )

A.K.Verma/