Patna High Court - Orders
Munshi Prasad Gupt & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 June, 2017
Author: Jyoti Saran
Bench: Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.180 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19374 of 2014
======================================================
1. Munshi Prasad Gupt, S/o Late Nathu Sah, Resident of New Area
Sikandarpur, Opposite Prabhat Jarda Supplier, Muzaffarpur.
2. Ganesh Kumar, S/o Late Sita Ram Sah, Resident of Village - Aadi
Gopalpur, P.S. - Bochaha, District- Muzaffarpur.
3. Sashi Kumar Singh, S/o Late Baleshwar Singh, Balughat, Muzaffarpur
4. Bijay Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Sitaram Choudhary, Jangli Mai
Sthan, Balughat, Muzaffarpur.
5. Binod Kumar Gupta s/o Sri Prahlad Sah, Resident of Village + P.O. -
Tetriya Factory, Muzaffarpur.
6. Om Prakash Gupta, S/o Late Raghunath Prasad, New Area Sikandarpur,
F.C.I. Road, Muzaffarpur.
7. Shailendra Kumar Shail, S/o Late Bhagwan Sah, Jangli Mai Sthan,
Balughat, Najirpur, Muzaffarpur.
8. Binod Kumar, S/o Sri Munshi Prasad Gupt, New Area Sikandarpur,
Opposite Prabhat Jarda Supplier, Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Shri S.N. Sahay, General Manager, the Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited, Alankar Palace, Boring Road, Patna, Pin Code- 800 001.
3. Sri M. Khan, Chief Manager, Power Transmission- National Power
Grid, P.O. - Dariyapur Kafen, Via- Turki, P.S. - Kurhni, District -
Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha,n AAG-2
For the Respondent-Corporation: Mr. Janardan Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arbind Kr. Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
3 28-06-2017Learned counsel for the parties are present.
It is not in dispute that the compensation as estimated and quantified by the Power Grid Corporation of India has been handed over to such of the petitioners who have been found eligible to draw such compensation but the amount quantified Patna High Court MJC No.180 of 2016 (3) dt.28-06-2017 2 does not satisfy the petitioners who are aggrieved by the quantification of compensation.
In view of the appellate remedy so available to the petitioners under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if so advised, they can take recourse to such remedy.
In the circumstances discussed, no case for contempt is made out.
The contempt application is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-
U