IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.921 of 2005 The Bihar State Electricity Board, A Corporate Body Constituted Under the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, having its registered office at Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman Versus 1. Ravish Narayan s/o Sri Y.Narayan, resident of Naya tola, Saguna, Danapur Cantt., Danapur, Patna, Properietor M/s True Style, 301, 1st floor, City Palace, Opposite NP Centre, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. Writ petitioner—respondent 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, PESU, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, PESU, Mangles Road, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dak Bunglow division, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 5. The Asstt. Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division, Dak Bunglow division, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 6. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Station Road Section, PESU, Patna. 7. The Electrical Executive Engineer, out sourcing, Board Head quarter, bailey Road, Patna. 8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, APT, Board Head quarter, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 9. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, APT, Board Head Quarter, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. Respondents- Proforma respondents. ----------- 4. 03.12.2010. Heard Mr Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent. The Bihar State Electricity Board has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 29.6.2005, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition was preferred for a direction to the Board to restore the electricity line of the petitioner’s shop situate in the township of Patna, allegedly illegally disconnected on 29.4.2005, and for the further 2 direction to the respondent-Board to refrain from making any demand on account of loss to the tune of Rs. 3,66,000/-, and so shown in the F.I.R. against the petitioner and others. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with certain directions and to await disposal of the criminal case, and other consequential directions. We do not find fault with the impugned order. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.K.Katriar,J). Shashi (S.P.Singh,J).