LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.1316 OF 1999 ***** Against the judgment and order dated 14th September, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 4522/99. ***** BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ---------------Appellant Versus M/S VENKY STEELS (P) LIMITED & Ors.-------Respondents. ***** For the Appellant:- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents:- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh and Jayanandan Singh,JJ.- Based on the ratio of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench in Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. V. M/s Sri Bir Ispat, reported in 1998 (3) BLJR 1985, a learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, allowed the writ petition, quashed the panel bill as was impugned in the writ petition but at the same time remitted back the matter to the Appellant-Board for reconsideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- - 2 - respondent. On the ground that the ratio of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Sri Bir Ispat (supra) should not be treated as the binding precedent, inasmuch as there are other Bench decisions contrary to what has been held in Sri Bir Ispat (supra), the present appeal was filed but at the same time the Appellant-Board without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the appeal acted in terms of the order under appeal, gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - respondent and thereupon raised a supplementary bill which has since been paid. In the circumstances the present appeal has become academic. The money due to the Appellant-Board on account of consumption of supply of electricity by the petitioner-respondent as ultimately determined by the Board has been received by the Board. In those circumstances, we dispose of this appeal without expressing any view as to the correctness of the judgment and order under appeal. However, it is made clear that in the event the petitioner – respondent has not paid part of the ultimate assessed demand, as reflected in the supplementary - 3 - bill, it shall be open to the Board to take such steps as the Board is entitled to take in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. ( Barin Ghosh, J. ) ( Jayanandan Singh, J. ) Patna High Court. The 2nd July, 2008. NAFR/DK