M/S Sig.Tel.Enterprises v. The North- East Frontier Railw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3695 of 2011 ====================================================== M/S Sig.Tel.Enterprises having its registered office at Mirchai Bari,Ps&District Katihar through its Partner Vinod Kumar Singh, Son Of Late Triolik Nath Singh, Resident Of Mohalla-Mirchaibari,Near Jaganat Mandir,Ps-Katihar District-Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The North- East Frontier Railway through General Manager, Construction, N.E.Railway, Maligaon,Guwahati.

2. The General Manager, Construction, N.F.Railway Maligaon, Guwahati.

3. The Chief Signal And Telecom Engineer, Construction, N.F. Railway Maligaon,Guwahai.

4. The Dy.C.S.T.E. Construction, N.F.Railway New Jalpaiguri(W.B)

5. The Dy.C.S.T.E. Con (HQ) N.F. Rly Maligaon Guwahati (The then Dy.C.S.T.E. Con.Katihar N.F.Rly.)

6. The A.S.T.E.Con-Katihar N.F.Rly At Present New Jalpaiguri (W.B.) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-05-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition. However, I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner had moved earlier before this Court in CWJC No.12527 of 2009, which was finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure-9). It is contended that in the light of the aforesaid order/direction issued by this Court, a reasoned order has been passed on 31.01.2011 (Annexure-1), which has been impugned in the present writ petition. According to him, the impugned order dated 31.01.2011 is in accordance with the guidelines and circulars of the Railway Board and it cannot be legally faulted.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3695 of 2011 (3) dt.18-05-2015 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents appear to be correct particularly in the background that the impugned order has been passed in compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order/communication dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent no.3. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U