Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1527 (PAT)

Rajendra Singh v. H. P. Singh

2007-09-18

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Stamp Reporter has pointed out that the copy of this application has not been served on the Counsel for the State. 2. On 10.9.2007 when the matter was taken up, Mr. Ojha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that attempt was made to serve the copy of the application but the office of the Advocate General refused to accept the same and stated that the same shall be accepted only when the pleadings of the writ petition, which has given rise to the present contempt application, are furnished. 3. Mr. Ojha contended that Rules of the High Court do not cast duty on the petitioner to serve the copies of the pleadings of the writ petition. 4. I had directed that an affidavit be filed by the Office of the Advocate General in this regard. Affidavit as directed has been filed. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that when the copy of the instant application was served upon the deponent he found that there was no entry of the said writ application in the Index Register and in order to facilitate the Counsel representing the State, requested for supply of the copy of the writ application alongwith the contempt application. It is further been stated that the Office of the Advocate General demands supply of the copy of the writ petition only in those cases wherein the copy of the writ application is not served in the Office of the Advocate General. 5. Mr. Ojha, without going into the wisdom of the Office of the Advocate General asking for the copy of writ petition submits that the Rules of the High Court do not cast such duty. 6. Rule 13(2) [sic3(ii) ?]of the Rules framed by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, namely, Contempt of Court (Patna High Court) Rules, inter alia provides that in every contempt petition the State of Bihar shall be made the respondent. State of Bihar is represented by the Advocate General, hence it is incumbent upon the petitioner to serve a copy of the same to the Office of the Advocate General before its filing. However the aforesaid Rule cannot be read to mean that pleadings of the connected case have to be served in the office of the Advocate General. State of Bihar is represented by the Advocate General, hence it is incumbent upon the petitioner to serve a copy of the same to the Office of the Advocate General before its filing. However the aforesaid Rule cannot be read to mean that pleadings of the connected case have to be served in the office of the Advocate General. Whatever may be the wisdom and the purpose for asking those pleadings, so long the High Court Rules does not cast such a duty on the petitioner the office of the Advocate General shall not be justified in insisting for making available other pleading other than the copy of the contempt petition. 7. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the contempt petition only to the Office of the Advocate General. 8. A copy has been served on Mr. Lalit Kishore, Additional Advocate General No. III. 9. In view of the show cause filed on behalf of the Rajendra Agricultural University, Mr. Ojha appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not press this application. 10. Mr. Parbat appears on behalf of the Rajendra Agricultural University. 11. Application stands dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Advocate General.