Rajeev Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6976 of 2023 ====================================================== Rajeev Raj S/o Indradev Prasad Resident of Nichli Guphapar, P.S. Laheri, District-Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
3.
The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.
The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
5.
The Superintending Engineer, Electricity, Electric Supply Circle, Bihar Sharif Nalanda.
6.
The Executive Engineer, Electricity, Electric Supply Division, Rajgir. 7.
The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
8.
The Additional Secretary, South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Abbas Haider, SC-6 Mr.Ravish Chandra, AC to SC-6 For Electricity Comp.
:
Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 28-11-2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "1.(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order No. 08 dated 1.2.2022 passed by respondent Executive Engineer as contained in his Memo No. 103/2022 dated 1.2.2022 whereby and whereunder respondent Executive Engineer without applying any judicial mind as well as without following guide as contained
Patna High Court CWJC No.6976 of 2023(2) dt.28-11-2023 2/2 in letter No.9 dated 1.2.2022 addressed to respondent Superintending Engineer, a copy of the same has also been communicated to respondent Executive Engineer, has been pleased to remove the petitioner from service.
(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondent authorities reinstate the petitioner in to his service and further for direction to the respondent authorities to pay the entire consequential benefit with statutory as well as penal interest."
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks not to press the present writ petition, however, seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to avail such other alternative remedies as are otherwise available under the law, for redressal of his aforesaid grievances. Liberty so sought is granted.
3. The writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) sonal/- U