Suraj Kumar v. Shri Pankaj Kumar Bihar Sarkar, Pradhan Sachiv, Urja Vibhag, Patna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2994 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17098 of 2022 ====================================================== 1.
Suraj Kumar S/o Late Vishun Deo Prasad Resident of Kadamkuan, Park Road, Police Station and Post-Kadamkuan, District-Patna. 2.
Saraswari Barnwal W/o Shri Suraj Kumar, Resident of Kadamkuan, Park Road, Police Station and Post-Kadamkuan, District-Patna. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1.
Shri Pankaj Kumar Bihar Sarkar, Pradhan Sachiv, Urja Vibhag, Patna Patna. 2.
Shri Mahendra Kumar, Prabandh Nideshak, SBPDCL, Patna. 3.
Shri Arvind Kumar, Mahaprabandhak (Rajaswa), SBPDCL, Patna. 4.
Shrimati Vijaya Lakshmijee, Vidyut Karyapalak Abhiyanta, Bankipur, Vidyut Apurti Pramandal, Patna.
5.
Shri Abhikshek Raj, Sahayak Vidyut Abhiyanta, Bankipur, Vidyut Sub Division, Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Standing Counsel 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 The petitioners were appearing in person in this case till the last date i.e. 15.05.2025. Petitioner no.2 was pursuing this contempt matter without disclosing about the judgment dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned writ court in CWJC No. 12829 of 2024. In fact, from the orders passed in this application it would appear that this Court had appointed one Advocate as Amicus Curiae to provide her some legal counselling. Today the petitioners are not present, however, learned A.C. to the Amicus Curiae has placed before this Court
Patna High Court MJC No.2994 of 2024(8) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 a copy of the judgment dated 30.01.2025 from which it appears that a learned writ court has already decided the matter and on perusal of paragraph '8' of the judgment it would appear that the electricity connection has already been restored.
2. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no reason to further waste the time of the Court.
3. This application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rishi/- U