IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7722 of 2010 1. Santosh Kumar Singh S/O Late Yogendra Singh R/O Vill.- Sone Nagar, P.S.- Barun, Distt.- Aurangabad (Bihar). Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Secretary, 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, 3. The Chief Engineer, Rural Electricity Supply, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Gaya 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Gaya 6. The Accountant Officer, Electric Supply Circles, Gaya. ---------------------------------- 2. 13.10.2011. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board and its functionaries. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2010 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by the respondent Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Bihar State Electricity Board, whereby and whereunder the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the liberty granted by this court in its order dated 10.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No.7736 of 2009 (Annexure-13), has been rejected. 2 Facts of the matter briefly stated are that the petitioner was granted the franchisee of Nawner Feeder, Barun, District Aurangabad of the respondent Board for the purpose of distribution of electricity bills and collection of the revenue amount. By reason of certain alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner to honour the terms the agreement of franchisee as entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Board, the Franchisee agreement was cancelled and by order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure- 2), the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Koch Branch in the district of Aurangabad was directed by the respondent Board to forfeit the petitioner’s bank guarantee amount to the tune of Rs.1,88,516/- and transfer the same to the account of the respondent Board. The records of the proceedings manifests that the cancellation of the agreement by the respondent Board as well as the order dated 5.2.2009 forfeiting the petitioner’s bank guarantee amount, was subject matter of a writ proceedings arising from C.W.J.C.No.7736 of 2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner and a bench of this court, vide order dated 10.7.2009, after hearing the contesting parties and considering 3 the materials on records, refused to interfere with the order of cancellation of the franchisee of the petitioner by the respondent Board. However, a liberty was granted to the petitioner for invoking the arbitration clause and for which he was granted liberty to file a representation. It is not in dispute that although a representation was filed by the petitioner but he failed to invoke the arbitration clause in the light of liberty granted by this Court rather he chose to challenge the decision of the respondent Board itself of canceling the agreement and forfeiting the bank guarantee amount. By the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 as communicated vide letter dated 22.3.2010, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected in the light of the earlier decision of the respondent Board. It is this decision of the Chief Engineer, Rural Electricity Supply which is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings. Considering the circumstances that the issue of cancellation of agreement and forfeiture of bank guarantee amount was subject 4 matter of C.W.J.C.No.7736 of 2009 and which challenge of the petitioner was rejected under order dated 10.7.2009 as contained in Annexure- 13, this court sitting in coordinate jurisdiction, would not pass any order which is at variance with the findings of the learned Single Judge on the merit of the claim of the petitioner. Even the order impugned dated 19.3.2010 placed at Annexure-1 does give rise to a cause of action for the petitioner as it is a plain and simple reiteration of the earlier decision of Board, not interfered with by this court in the earlier round of proceedings. Faced with the situation, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition to take recourse to the remedy as available to him in law. Permission is allowed. The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)