IN THE HIG H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.22 of 2008 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BSEB,PATNA(RESPONDENTS) ------------------PETITIONERS Versus RAM SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE HARI BILASH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- RAHIMAPUR, P.S.- BIDUPUR,DISTT—VAISHALI ------------- (WRIT PETITIONER)------OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 4 20.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ application, namely CWJC No. 8750 of 2006 was filed by the opposite party seeking a direction upon the petitioner Electricity Board to dispose of the proceeding pending against him which was initiated in compliance of an order dated 9.2.2005 passed in CWJC No. 12963 of 2004. While disposing of CWJC No. 12963 of 2004 the Court was pleased to fix a time frame of four months for issuing notice to the petitioner (Opposite party) and decide the matter thereafter. When nothing came to be done CWJC No. 8750 of 2006 was filed. No counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Electricity Board in the matter. The matter was heard on 17.4.2007 and disposed of by the Court recording that if the respondents Electricity Board were not vigilant enough to honour the order and the time frame passed in 2005 they must conclude the matter as they are prevented from taking any further action on the issue against the petitioner. After disposal of CWJC No. 8750 of 2006 the present review application came to be filed by the Electricity Board. It is stated - 2 - in this petition that the order needs modification or reconsideration in the light of the fact that a final order dated 4.4.2007 which is a speaking order has been passed by the competent authority after notice to the petitioner within four months and the same was duly communicated to the petitioner on 11.4.2007 by Registered post. If the said fact is not taken into consideration then it will create an anomalous situation and will also create problem in settlement of the retiral dues of the opposite party. The fact is that when the writ application was disposed of on 17.4.2007 neither the petitioner nor the opposite party informed the Court of the order dated 4.4.2007. The Court was given an impression that the authorities of Electricity Board have not taken any steps after the order dated 9.2.2005 was passed in CWJC No. 12963 of 2004. But now when the order is brought on record the same cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. Since the opposite party raised a serious doubt about the authenticity and existence of the order dated 4.4.2007, the Court was pleased to call for the original record to verify whether the order in question had been passed on 4.4.2007 and has also been communicated to the opposite party. The Court on verification is satisfied that the said order has come to be passed after hearing the opposite party and in due course of business. In view of the above and keeping the totality of the situation, the review application is allowed. The order dated 17.4.2007 passed in CWJC No. 8750 of 2006 would stands modified to the extent - 3 - that the claim of the settlement of the dues of the opposite party would be governed in the light of speaking order passed by the competent authority on 4.4.2007, subject to any challenge to the same in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. This review application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)