← Library
Patna High CourtL.P.A/1488/2014disposed

Dr. Lila Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board And Sors

2017-07-17Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1488 of 2014 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 4885 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Dr. Lila Singh W/o Sri Bhupendra Narayan Singh Resident Of-A-2/1, Purnendu Nagar, P.O.-Veterinary College, P.S.-Phulwari Sharif, DistrictPatna .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Through Its Chairman (presently South Bihar Power Holding Corporation Ltd.)

2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, PESU (West Circle), Patna

4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Khagaul, Danapur

5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply, Sub Division, Khagaul

6. The Appellate Authority, Patna District-Cum-Electric Inspector, Bihar, Patna, Inspectorate of Electricity, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 17-07-2017 Merely because this appeal is disposed of on the magnanimity shown on behalf of the appellant, it does not mean that the Court appreciates the conduct of the respondents in carrying out the judicial order in letter and spirit. The appellant surely had made out a case for certain directions and creating obligation upon the respondents looking at the seven long years, which it took for refund of the excess money, which was required to

Patna High Court LPA No.1488 of 2014 (6) dt.17-07-2017 2/2 be refunded in terms of the 2011 judicial order. The respondents, however, are cautioned that the indulgence may not be there, if they behave in a similar fashion in any other litigation in future.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sk U