Akhtari Bano v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4589 of 2016 ====================================================== Akhtari Bano Wife of Late Mumtaz Ahmad, Resident of Mohalla - Ramana Road, Loha Patti Lane, P.O. - Head Post Office, Gaya, P.S. - Civil Line, District - Gaya Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

5.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Power Transmission Co. Ltd., Transmission Zone, Patna.

6.

The Superintendent Engineer Electricity, Gaya Circle, Gaya, Bihar. 7.

The Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division, Bodh Gaya, Gaya, Bihar. null null 8.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv.

:

Mr. Ashok Kumar Karna, Adv.

:

Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Adv.

:

Mr. Shankar Kumar, Adv.

:

Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-07-2024

1. On 10.05.2024 and on 16.07.2024 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed for today i.e. 18.07.2024 as a last indulgence. Inspite of it, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents reported to the Court that this case is squarely

Patna High Court CWJC No.4589 of 2016(4) dt.18-07-2024 2/2 covered by a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors., reported in 2017(2) PLJR (SC)152 where the Apex Court held that the private land holder can at best apply for compensation as per Indian Telegraph Act.

3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered of view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate compensation by approaching the concerned District Judge and in any case such petition is filed, the same is expected to be disposed of expeditiously by the District Court.

4. It is needless to say that in case appropriate petition is filed within four weeks from today the same should be examined and considered on merits by the District Court.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) amitkr/- U