IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.264 of 2009 SURENDRA PRASAD Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ----------- 3 13.1.2010 Having heard the parties, in my view, prima facie, as third party right has already been created prior to the writ petition itself being filed and the third party not having been heard by this Court and judgment having been delivered in absence of third party, the writ petition requires reconsideration, notwithstanding the judgment having been affirmed in L.P.A. because of this basic defect committed by this Court. Respondent- railway in the writ petition is directed to file an affidavit clearly showing as to the extent of work done by the third party as well as the details of work order and work done by the writ petitioner so far and suggest means to obviate the problem crated by this Court by not hearing or protecting third party’s right. Let it be noted that Mr. P.K.Verma, who had appeared in the writ petition for the petitioner is also present in the Court. The writ petition would be taken up on 27.1.2010, under the same heading, retaining its positon. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)