Ram Narayan Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Boardand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16600 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Narayan Yadav, son of late Chhote Lal Yadav @ Chhoti Yadav, resident of village-Bharrahi, Tol, P.S.-Madhepura (Bharrahi), DistrictMadhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, through its Chairman.

2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Electrical Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prakash Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2015 Heard the parties.

In view of the nature of grievances/claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that, instead of keeping the matter pending here for deciding all the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner, interest of justice shall be sub-served, if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation with all supporting documents before the respondent no.2 or his successor or any other competent authority, raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present writ petition. It is ordered accordingly. If such a comprehensive representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent no.2 or his successor or any other competent authority shall be obliged to consider and decide the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such comprehensive representation by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16600 of 2008 (3) dt.07-04-2015 petitioner. If on consideration of the materials, the respondent no.2 or his successor or any other competent authority comes to a conclusion that the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner are admissible to him, then the consequential benefits shall also be granted without any unnecessary further delay. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition and the same is left to be decided by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U