IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4959 of 2010 1. Bhuwan Prasad Sinha S/O Late Ganesh Pd. Sinha R/O Mohalla- Gaurakshani Mahabir Asthan, Ward No.4, P.O. And P.S. Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board Gaya Area Board, Gaya 4. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram, At P.O. & P.S. Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 5. The Executive Engineer Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram, At P.O. And P.S. Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 6. The Assistant Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram, Rohtas ----------- 4 09.08.2011 The petitioner had come before this Court complaining the shifting of electric transformer from the place at which it was situated to near the boundary wall of the ancestral house of the petitioner thus affecting the safety and security of the residents of the house. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, Electrical Executive Engineer denying the complain of the petitioner. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that by reason of the widening of the road from Gorakshni over bridge near Suman Market to Lalganj Canal and afterwards on the State highway, the position of the transformer at its original place was creating some hindrance and hence the same was transferred to a different place but not in front of the house of the petitioner. It is stated that no doubt a double pole was erected near the house of the petitioner but that was not for the purpose of installation of the transformer rather the same was for the purpose of strengthening overhead wire passing through the area. It is stated that the transformer which was originally allocated in front of the house of one Nagendra Prasad Singh, consequent upon the 2 widening of the Arrah- Sasaram road has been shifted to a safer place on a public land not affecting any of the residences including the present petitioner. It is thus contended that the grievance set out by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-Electricity Board and its authorities, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same is disposed of. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)