Patna High CourtCWJC/17091/2014dismissed

Ganesh Sah And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-02-24Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17091 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Ganesh Sah S/o Shankar Sah

2. Madan Pd. S/o Late Sanju Pd.

3. Nand Kishore Pd.

4. Sanjay Kumar

5. Binod Kumar Petitioner No. (3) to (5) Son of Late Sanju Pd. All resident of Pipra Bazar, P.S. Pipra, Distt. - East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Collector, East Champaran

2. Collector, East Champaran,Motihari

3. Circle Officer, Chakia Block, East Champaran

4. Executive Engineer, North Bihar, Power Company Limited, East Champaran, Motihari

5. Sub - Divisional Electrical Officer, Chakia, Sub - Division, East Champaran

6. Junior Electrical Engineer, South Bihar Power Company Limited, Chakia, East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

24-02-2016 Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent/North Bihar Power Co. Ltd. In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made for restraining the respondents to install transformer with high voltage wire near the Chakia Bazar.

It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that installation of such transformer at such locality would create

Patna High Court CWJC No.17091 of 2014 (2) dt.24-02-2016 2/2 possibility of accident and as such, direction can be issued to respondents not to install such transformer.

It is not a case that over the land of petitioner(s), respondents are proposing to install transformer. Normally, installation of transformer is for the interest of the public. Keeping in view the fact that no specific right of the petitioners is going to be infringed, it would be difficult for this Court to entertain the writ petition.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U