CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.359 OF 2000 ----- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----- Ram Deo Prasad, son of Late Guru Charan Prasad, resident of Village Chakdhari, P.O. Nagar Nousa, District Nalanda --- ---- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Enquiring Officer, Member, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 5. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. --- ---- --- ---- Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha,Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra,Advocate For the Respondent- Board : Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ------- Shailesh Kr. Sinha, J. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent- Board. 3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 21.3.2003 to the Secretary of the Board for re- considering the whole matter. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid representation, the petitioner received a letter, bearing No.1046 dated 3rd of April, 2003 from the respondent-Board, as contained in Annexure 10, communicating him that upon consideration of his representation dated 21.3.2003 it has been decided to give another opportunity to him to offer - 2 - his explanation with regard to the charges, which were found proved in the enquiry and as such the petitioner was provided with a copy of the second show cause notice and the enquiry report with further advice to file appeal petition within a period of one month. Pursuant to Annexure 10, the petitioner filed an appeal on 14.5.2003 before the Chairman of the Board, as contained in Annexure 11, which is still pending. 4. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that the appeal could not be disposed of on account of pendency of the writ application. 5. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ application to enable disposal of the appeal of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 11, which was filed pursuant to the letter No.1046 dated 3rd of April, 2003, as contained in Annexure 10. 6. In view of the above, the writ application is permitted to be withdrawn. Now, the Board shall dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 11, in accordance with law by a reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order/judgment. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court, The 27th of April, 2010. P.N.M. N.A.F.R.