Patna High CourtMJC/1595/2014dismissed

Rajendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-02Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court MJC No.1595 of 2014 (6) dt.02-09-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1595 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10835 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Rajendra Prasad Retired Typist Electric Supply Division Lakhisarai, Son of Late Devi Mahto, Village - Lakhochak, P.O. - Bicchway, P.S. - Chanan, District - Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Sichai Bhaswan, Kranti Marg, Patna-1

2. Sri Sandip Paundrik, Chairman-cum-Managing Director Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. Smt. Kriti Kiran Company Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. Sri Pramod Tiwary Deputy General Manager Terminal Benefit Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. Sri S.S.P. Srivastava the then General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer Electric Supply Area Bhagalpur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramnandan Kr. Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 02.09.2015 Second supplementary show cause is filed on behalf of the Electricity Board.

Learned counsel for the Electricity Board drew my attention towards annexure A to the second supplementary show cause and submitted that payment has already been made to the petitioner in the light of Board's standing order no. 2 of 1958-59/EB- M1-315/58 and now, nothing is due to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was never pleaded before this court at the time of hearing of CWJC no.10835/2013 that payment should be made to the petitioner in the

Patna High Court MJC No.1595 of 2014 (6) dt.02-09-2015 light of the above stated order no.2.

In my view, the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not subject matter of this contempt petition and if, petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2014 passed in CWJC no.10835/2013, he may take legal recourse in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.

Shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) U T