IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.509 of 2010 ***** Shakti Tubes Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 401 Kashi Place, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna through one of its Directors, Sri Dilip Kumar Churiwal, son of Sri Bishwa Nath Churiwal, aged about 50 years, resident of Flat No.52, Kaveri Apartments, Bandar Bagicha, in the town and District of Patna. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (C & R), BSEB, R. Block, Patna. 5. The Electrical Executive Engineer, BSEB, Hajipur District-Vaishali. 6. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Hajipur, District-Vaishali. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikash Jain, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate ------------ 2. 18.3.2010. Though this matter was listed for admission, yet on consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. We have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. In this intra-court appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge - 2 - in C.W.J.C. No. 15096 of 2007. Learned Single Judge while concluding the order has stated so:- “The objection of the petitioner that Annexure-3 would not be considered to be a compliance of Clause (1), Annexure-1 is too technical and stands on too thin an edge to be sustainable. The Annexure-3 forms the details of the dues over the period and would amount to substantial compliance of annexure-1. The petitioner having not paid the dues as raised vide Annexure-3, it did not comply clause (1) of the understanding / agreement, as contained in Annexure-1. Thus no fault can be found with letter dated 11.12.2007 (Annexure-6) of respondent no.2, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Area Electricity Board, Muzaffarpur communicating the decision of the committee to nullify the agreement arrived at meeting dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure-1). It further appears that petitioner has also failed to clear the other bills raised by the Board. The petitioner submits that the Bills are faulty, whereas the stand of the Board is that the Bills are correct. As the issues of facts are in dispute, this Court is not inclined to stay the legal notice issued by respondent no.4 vide his letter dated 28.06.2008 purporting to initiate a certificate proceeding. However, it will be open to the petitioner to represent to the concerned respondents against the legal notice.” Submission of Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel is that when the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to represent to the concerned respondents against the legal notice, he would have been well advised not to dwell - 3 - upon the merits of the challenge to the notice. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion when the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned respondents against the legal notice it was not apposite to refer to the merits of the case inasmuch as that would be prejudging the issue and also restrict the hands of the competent authority. In view of the aforesaid, we are only directing that the competent authority while dealing with the representation shall not be influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge and decide the whole issue independently within the statutory parameters. With the aforesaid observation the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)