Patna High Court - Orders
The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors vs The Bihar Human Rights Commission & Ors on 22 January, 2016
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6443 of 2013
======================================================
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board @ Bihar State Power ( Holding )
Company Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Vidyut
Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
2. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power ( Holding )
Company, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board - Cum - Bihar State
Power ( Holding )Comany Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar Human Rights Commission Through Its Chairman, 9 Bailey
Road, Patna - 15
2. The Chairperson, Bihar Human Rights Commission, 9 Bailey Road,
Patna - 15
3. Sri Baidyanath Chakarwarti, Chief Engineer ( Retired ) Son Of Name Not
Known Resident Of Sri Krishna Garden, Parikrama Marg ( Jatipura Side )
Post Gobardhan, District - Mathura, Pin Code - 281502 ( U.P. )
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjit Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
4 22-01-2016No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the Counsel for the respondent no. 3.
The Bihar State Electricity Board (now Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.) has filed the present writ application questioning the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by the Chairperson of the Bihar Human Rights Commission in BHRC /COMP. 715 of 2012.
Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that aggrieved by the order passed by the petitioner Board withholding 80 % of the Pension, the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 18137 Patna High Court CWJC No.6443 of 2013 (4) dt.22-01-2016 2/2 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner which has been allowed vide order dated 1.7.2015. Pursuant to the order, payments have already been made to the petitioner who has already retired.
On going through the pleadings and the stand taken by the respondent no. 3, in my view, the writ application has lost its relevance. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Pankaj/-
U