Laldeo Prasad vs The State of Bihar — MJC/1556/2023
Case under Constitution of India Section 215. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 05th May 2026.
CNR: BRHC010488212023
e-Filing Number
22-05-2023
Filing Number
MJC/11609/2023
Filing Date
23-May-2023
Registration No
MJC/1556/2023
Registration Date
30-May-2023
Judge
Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Coram
Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MJC ( 10 )
Sub-Category
CONTEMPT- SJ ( 100 )
Judicial Branch
Judicial Section
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Laldeo Prasad
Adv. Rashmi Jha
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Bihar
-
2.Sri Shrisat Kapil Ashok, District Magistrate,
-
3.Sri Kamlesh Kumar Singh, Deputy Development Commissioner,
-
4.Sadik Akhtar, District Panchayat Officer,
-
5.Sri Shailendra Kumar, District Accounts Officer,
-
6.Sri Saroj Kumar, Block Development Officer,
-
7.Sri Rajnish Kumar, Block Development Officer,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Mr. Justice Rajiv RoyView PDF
Case Summary: MJC/1556/2023 Laldeo Prasad, a Panchayat Secretary, filed a contempt petition against Bihar state officials for allegedly disobeying a court order dated 25.09.2018 from Civil Writ Case No.17410 of 2015. The District Magistrate rejected his claim vide memo dated 24.07.2023. Justice Rajiv Roy disposed of the contempt petition while granting the petitioner liberty to agitate any remaining grievance in appropriate proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2024
Miscellaneous
The Joint Registrar Judicial Lawazima
-
23-May-2023
Case filed
Registration No. MJC/1556/2023
Case Summary: MJC/1556/2023 Laldeo Prasad, a Panchayat Secretary, filed a contempt petition against Bihar state officials for allegedly disobeying a court order dated 25.09.2018 from Civil Writ Case No.17410 of 2015. The District Magistrate rejected his claim vide memo dated 24.07.2023. Justice Rajiv Roy disposed of the contempt petition while granting the petitioner liberty to agitate any remaining grievance in appropriate proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts