← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/5837/2017disposed

Pravin Chandra v. The Union Of India And ORS

2018-09-19Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5837 of 2017 ====================================================== Pravin Chandra, S/o Premchandra Singh, Resident of Muhulla- Andarkila, S.D.O. Road, P.S.- Hajipur Town, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary Department of Telecommunication and Information Technology, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunication and Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.

3. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India through its Director General.

4. The Deputy Director General, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

5. The Reliance Communication Ltd. Through its Officer- Customer Care.

6. Customer Service Desk, Bihar- Jharkhand Reliance Communication 3rd Floor, Maru Mansion Bing Kanke Road, Ranchi, Pin- 834008.

7. The Customer Service Desk, Reliance Communication, Kashi Place, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Chandra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D Sanjay (Addl. Soc. Gen.) Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan (CGC) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2018 Heard Mr. Dr. Bipin Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, learned C.G.C. The present writ application has been filed for a direction to Respondent No.5, the Reliance Communication Ltd. and Respondent No.6, Customer Service Desk, Bihar-Jharkhand Reliance Communication to reactivate the Mobile No.9334441223.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said mobile number has been reactivated, hence, this claim has become infructuous, however, he further claims for

Patna High Court CWJC No.5837 of 2017(2) dt.19-09-2018 2/2 compensation of loss due to delayed reactivation. Considering the fact that substantial relief claimed in writ application has become infructuous, hence, the present writ application is disposed of as infructuous.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to re-agitate the issue regarding compensating the loss before the appropriate authority.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/Deepak/- U