Parmeshwar Prasad Mahto vs The State Of Bihar Through Anjani Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors — MJC/1096/2018

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: BRHC010092662018

Filing Number

MJC/32299/2018

Filing Date

04-Apr-2018

Registration No

MJC/1096/2018

Registration Date

04-Apr-2018

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

Category

MJC ( 10 )

Sub-Category

CONTEMPT- SJ ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Parmeshwar Prasad Mahto

    Adv. Pramod Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh,Awadhesh Kumar Singh, ,Awadhesh Kumar Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Of Bihar Through Anjani Kumar Singh, Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajiv RoyView PDF

    The Patna High Court disposed of petitioner Parmeshwar Prasad Mahto's contempt petition seeking action against the State of Bihar for allegedly disobeying an earlier court order dated 13.11.2017. The State Counsel argued that notional permission had been granted to the petitioner and since he had already received first and second Additional Cultivation Permits (ACP), he was not entitled to the second ACP again. The court disposed of the contempt petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue further relief if any grievance remained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Lokadalat ( For Orders )

    Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy

  4. 04-Apr-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. MJC/1096/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The Patna High Court disposed of petitioner Parmeshwar Prasad Mahto's contempt petition seeking action against the State of Bihar for allegedly disobeying an earlier court order dated 13.11.2017. The State Counsel argued that notional permission had been granted to the petitioner and since he had already received first and second Additional Cultivation Permits (ACP), he was not entitled to the second ACP again. The court disposed of the contempt petition while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue further relief if any grievance remained. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case