Patna High CourtCWJC/9047/2015disposed

Manish Kumar Singh And ORS v. The Bihar State Power Holding Copmay Limited And ORS

2015-09-01Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9047 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar Singh son of late Madan Prasad Singh resident of village + P.O. and P.S. Punpun, District Patna.

2. Saurabh Kumar son of late Ram Babu Singh resident of village Ghanuchak P.S. Parsa Bazar, Distt. Patna.

3. Ravi Bhushan Singh son of Hare Krishna Singh resident of village Sona Gopalpur, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt. Patna.

4. Birendra Kumar Singh son of late Ambika Singh resident of village Ghanuchak P.S. Parsa Bazar, Distt. Patna.

5. Ravi Ranjan Kumar son of Ram Bhawan Prasad Singh resident of village - Bairiya, P.S. Gopalpur, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The Bihar State Power Holding Copmay Limited through Chairman cum Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

2. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Chief Electrical Engineer (Commercial) the South Bihar Distribution Company Limites , Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Circle, SBPDCL, Patna.

5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Masaurhi, Patna.

6. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue) Electric Supply Division, Masaruhi, Patna.

7. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Punpun, Patna.

8. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Sampatchak, Patna. .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2015 The petitioners pray for setting aside order dated 6.5.2015, issued by respondent no.6 by which franchise granted in their favour has been cancelled by the respondents on the ground that they were not conducting meter reading of 50% consumers in the allotted area causing revenue loss to the Company. Petitioners have further prayed for payment of their dues against the work performed by them.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9047 of 2015 (2) dt.01-09-2015 2/2 Counsel for the Company states that being dissatisfied with the work performance of petitioners, the Company has cancelled the contract as per clause 24 of the agreement. The writ petition is disposed of with an observation that petitioners may approach the appropriate authority against cancellation of contract. So far as the unpaid wages are concerned, if the petitioners file a detailed representation before respondent no.5, he would dispose of their claim within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.