{"id":55544,"date":"2011-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-07-04T05:25:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-03T23:55:00","slug":"bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha<\/div>\n
                                                                                                REPORTABL\n                                                                                                  E  \n\n\n                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                           CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7754 OF 2011 \n\n                [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.126 OF 2009]\n\n\n\n\n\nBihar State Electricity Board & Anr.                                           ....Appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                                Versus\n\n\n\n\nRam Deo Prasad Singh & Ors.                                                   ....Respondents \n\n\n\n\n\n                                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Aftab Alam,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.       Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.           The appellants, Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman were <\/p>\n
the   defendants   in   a   suit   filed   by   respondents   1   to   8,   the   plaintiffs.   The <\/p>\n
respondents were the workmen of the Board and at the material time, i.e., in <\/p>\n
                                                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
the   year   1974   they   were   working   as   security   guards   at   Patratu   Thermal <\/p>\n
Power Station, Hazaribagh. They were proceeded against on certain charges <\/p>\n
of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry the charges were established and on <\/p>\n
the basis of the findings of the domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from <\/p>\n
service on November 11, 1975. After 4 years of dismissal from service they <\/p>\n
filed   a   suit   (T.S.   No.   95\/1979)   in   the   court   of   Munsiff   V,   Patna,   seeking <\/p>\n
declarations that their dismissal was bad, unconstitutional and inoperative in <\/p>\n
law and they would be legally deemed to have continued in service.<\/p>\n
3.      The trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated August <\/p>\n
29, 1981. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and <\/p>\n
decree passed by the trial court (Title Appeal No. 147 of 1981\/62\/2004) was <\/p>\n
dismissed by the Additional District Judge, fast track court No. 2, Patna, by <\/p>\n
judgment dated January 18, 2006. The appellants, then, brought the matter <\/p>\n
before the High Court in second appeal (SA No. 97 of 2006) but this too was <\/p>\n
dismissed by judgment and order dated September 22, 2008. The appellants <\/p>\n
are now before this Court assailing the judgments and decree passed against <\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.           In   view   of   section   89   of   the   Bihar   Reorganisation   Act,   2000   the <\/p>\n
judgments   of   the   High   Court   and   the   first   appellate   court   appear   to   be <\/p>\n
                                                                                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. It may be noted that the district <\/p>\n
of Hazaribagh, where Patratu Thermal Power Station is situated, was earlier <\/p>\n
part   of   the   State   of  Bihar  but   on  bifurcation   of  the   State   with   effect   from <\/p>\n
November   15,   2000,   the   appointed   date   under   the   Reorganisation   Act   it <\/p>\n
forms   part   of   the   newly   created   State   Jharkhand.   Section   89   of   the <\/p>\n
Reorganisation Act dealing with transfer of pending proceedings provides as <\/p>\n
follows –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “89.”Transfer of pending proceedings –<\/p>\n
        (1)                  Every   proceeding   pending   immediately   before   the <\/p>\n
                             appointed   day   before   the   court   (other   than   the   High <\/p>\n
                             Court), tribunal, authority or officer in any area which <\/p>\n
                             on that day falls within the State of Bihar shall, if it is <\/p>\n
                             a   proceeding   relating   exclusively   to   the   territory, <\/p>\n
                             which   as   from  that   day   is   the   territory   of  Jharkhand <\/p>\n
                             State,   stand   transferred   to   the   corresponding   court, <\/p>\n
                             tribunal, authority or officer of that State.<\/p>\n
        (2)                  If   any   question   arises   as   to   whether   any   proceeding <\/p>\n
                             should stand transferred under sub-section (1), it shall <\/p>\n
                             be referred to the High Court at Patna and the decision <\/p>\n
                             of that High Court shall be final.<\/p>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
        (3)                  In this section, -\n\n               a)    \"proceeding\" includes any suit, case or appeal; and\n\n<\/pre>\n
               b) “corresponding   court,   tribunal   authority   or   officer” <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     in the State of Jharkhand means, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (i)         the   court,   tribunal,   authority   or   officer   in <\/p>\n
                                 which,   or   before   whom,   the   proceeding   would <\/p>\n
                                 have   laid   if   it   had   been   instituted   after   the <\/p>\n
                                 appointed day; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     (ii)        in case of doubt, such court, tribunal, authority, or <\/p>\n
                                 officer in that State, as may be determined after the <\/p>\n
                                 appointed day by the Government of that State or <\/p>\n
                                                                                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
                           the   Central   Government,   as   the   case   may   be,   or <\/p>\n
                           before the appointed day by the Government of the <\/p>\n
                           existing   State   of   Bihar   to   be   the   corresponding <\/p>\n
                           court, tribunal, authority or officer.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                    (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
From   a   bare   reading   of   section   89   of   the   Act,   it   is   evident   that   on   the <\/p>\n
appointed date the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed <\/p>\n
by   the   Munsiff   stood   transferred   to   a   corresponding   court   in   the   State   of <\/p>\n
Jharkhand.  The transfer of the appeal took place by operation of law and the <\/p>\n
Additional   District   Judge,   Patna   was   denuded   of   all   authority   and <\/p>\n
jurisdiction to proceed with the matter or to hear and decide the appeal. It <\/p>\n
follows   equally   that   the   Patna   High   Court   had   no   jurisdiction   to   hear   and <\/p>\n
decide the second appeal arising from the suit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.       From the judgment of the Patna High Court it appears that one of the  <\/p>\n
three substantial questions of law arising in the second appeal related to the <\/p>\n
question of jurisdiction of the first appellate court to hear the appeal and the <\/p>\n
question was framed as follows: –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “3.   Whether   the   lower   appellate   court   had   the   jurisdiction   to <\/p>\n
         hear   the   title   appeal   after   coming   into   force   of   the   Bihar   Re-<\/p>\n
         organisation Act, 2000?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
6.       The High Court answered the question in the negative, but in doing so <\/p>\n
it sought to side-step section 89 of the Re-organisation Act in curious ways. <\/p>\n
In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it held and observed as follows: –<\/p>\n
             “9. It is not in dispute that when the title suit was <\/p>\n
             filed the said Act had not come into force and even <\/p>\n
             when the title appeal was filed in the year 1981 the <\/p>\n
             said   Act   was   not   in   force   and   the   said   Act   came <\/p>\n
             into   force   in   the   year   2000   and   it   was   made <\/p>\n
             effective   from   15.11.2000   much   after   the   title <\/p>\n
             appeal   had   been   admitted   and   was   pending   for <\/p>\n
             hearing. Furthermore, there was an issue before the <\/p>\n
             trial   court   with   respect   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the <\/p>\n
             court to try the suit as objection was raised by the <\/p>\n
             defendants  that  the suit  should  have  been  filed  at <\/p>\n
             Hazaribagh and the said issue was framed as issue <\/p>\n
             no.   (iv)   but   the   same   was   not   pressed   by   the <\/p>\n
             defendants   before   the   trial   court   and   hence   it <\/p>\n
             appears   to   have   been   conceded   by   them   that   the <\/p>\n
             court at Patna had jurisdiction to try the suit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             10. Section 89 of the Act specifically provides that <\/p>\n
             a   suit   or   an   appeal   pending   in   the   territory   of <\/p>\n
             reorganised State of Bihar would stand transferred <\/p>\n
             to   the   State   of  Jharkhand   if   the   subject   matter   of <\/p>\n
             the suit falls within the State of Jharkhand. But it is <\/p>\n
             also   provided   that   if   any   question   arises   as   to <\/p>\n
             whether   it   shall   be   referred   to   Patna   High   Court <\/p>\n
             and   decision   of   that   High   Court   shall   be   final. <\/p>\n
             However,   in   the   instant   case   it   is   quite   apparent <\/p>\n
             that   the   title   appeal   remained   pending   for   about <\/p>\n
             four years after coming into force of the aforesaid <\/p>\n
             Act but the defendants who were the appellants in <\/p>\n
             that   Court   never   raised   any   such   question   with <\/p>\n
             regard to the jurisdiction of the Court nor any such <\/p>\n
             matter was ever referred to the High Court at Patna <\/p>\n
             as per the said provisions of Law. Hence, in these <\/p>\n
                                                                                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
                circumstances   the   learned   court   of   appeal   below <\/p>\n
                was quite justified in hearing the said title appeal <\/p>\n
                and deciding it on merits.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
7.       The High Court is wrong on all scores. The fact that the appeal against <\/p>\n
the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   Munsiff   was   filed   before   the <\/p>\n
bifurcation of the State and on the appointed date (November 15, 2000) the <\/p>\n
appeal   was   already   pending   before   the   Additional   District   Judge   has   no <\/p>\n
bearing   on   the   issue.   Section   89   relates   to   proceedings  pending  on   the <\/p>\n
appointed   date   and   not   to   proceeding   that   might   be   filed   after   that   date. <\/p>\n
Secondly, the objection in regard to the territorial jurisdiction, raised before <\/p>\n
the trial court was in an altogether different context. The objection before the <\/p>\n
trial   court   was   based   on   the   ground   that   the   plaintiffs-workmen   were <\/p>\n
working   at   Patratu   Thermal   Power   Station   and   their   dismissal   had   taken <\/p>\n
place there. The cause of action having arisen at Patratu,  the suit ought to <\/p>\n
have   been   filed   before   a   court   under   whose   territorial   jurisdiction   Patratu <\/p>\n
Thermal Power Station is situate. The objection was not pressed before the <\/p>\n
trial court presumably because the head office of the Board being at Patna it <\/p>\n
was believed that the plaintiffs could file the suit at Patna as well. But the <\/p>\n
objection taken before the Munsiff, whether pressed or given up, could have <\/p>\n
no bearing on the transfer of the proceedings on the bifurcation of the State <\/p>\n
in terms of section 89 of the Reorganisation Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                                                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.     The third ground given by the High Court that the defendants who were <\/p>\n
the appellants before the Additional District Judge never raised the question <\/p>\n
with   regard   to   the   jurisdiction   of   the   court   nor   any   such   question   was <\/p>\n
referred   to   the   Patna   High   Court   for   its   decision,   is   equally   misconceived <\/p>\n
and untenable. As noted above, the transfer of the proceedings in terms of <\/p>\n
section   89   of   the   Act   is   to   take   place   by   operation   of   law   and   is   not <\/p>\n
dependant upon any objection raised by any of the two sides.<\/p>\n
9.       In light of the above, it must be held that the judgment passed by the <\/p>\n
first appellate court was illegal and without jurisdiction and equally without <\/p>\n
jurisdiction is the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court.<\/p>\n
10.     Further, quite strangely the High Court lost sight of the fact that it was <\/p>\n
affirming a decree that was no longer executable or enforceable in the State <\/p>\n
of Bihar. Section 62 of the Reorganisation Act contains provisions relating <\/p>\n
to Bihar State Electricity Board besides two other Corporations and in so far <\/p>\n
as relevant for the present provides as under: –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “62.  Provisions   as   to   Bihar   State   Electricity   Board,   State <\/p>\n
        Warehousing   Corporation   and   State   Road   Transport <\/p>\n
        Corporation.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (1) The  following bodies  corporate  constituted for the existing <\/p>\n
            State of Bihar, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) the   State   Electricity   Board   constituted   under   the <\/p>\n
                Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (54 of 1948);<\/p>\n
                                                                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (b) the State Warehousing Corporation established under the <\/p>\n
        Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962);<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (c) the   State   Road   Transport   Corporation   established   under <\/p>\n
        the Road Transport Act, 1950 (64 of 1950),<\/p>\n
shall,   on   and   from   the   appointed   day,   continue   to   function   in <\/p>\n
those   areas   in   respect   of   which   they   were   functioning <\/p>\n
immediately   before   that   day,   subject   to   the   provisions   of   this <\/p>\n
section   and   to   such   directions   as   may,   from   time   to   time,   be <\/p>\n
issued by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
\n(2) Any directions issued by the Central Government under sub-<\/p>\n
    section (1) in respect of the Board or the Corporation shall <\/p>\n
    include a direction that the Act under which the Board or the <\/p>\n
    Corporation  was  constituted  shall,  in its  application   to  that <\/p>\n
    Board or Corporation, have effect subject to such exceptions <\/p>\n
    and modifications as the Central Government thinks fit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
(3) The Board or the Corporation referred to in sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1) shall cease to function as from, and shall be deemed <\/p>\n
    to be dissolved on such date as the Central Government <\/p>\n
    may,   by   order,   appoint;   and   upon   such   dissolution,   its <\/p>\n
    assets, rights and liabilities shall be apportioned between <\/p>\n
    the   successor   States   of   Bihar   and   Jharkhand   in   such <\/p>\n
    manner as may be agreed upon between them within one <\/p>\n
    year of the dissolution of the Board or the Corporation, <\/p>\n
    as the case may be, or if no agreement is reached, in such <\/p>\n
    manner   as   the   Central   Government   may;   by   order, <\/p>\n
    determine:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Provided that any liabilities of the said Board relating to <\/p>\n
the unpaid dues of the coal supplied to the Board by any public <\/p>\n
sector coal company shall be provisionally apportioned between <\/p>\n
the   State   Electricity   Boards   constituted   respectively   in   the <\/p>\n
successor States of the existing State of Bihar or after the date <\/p>\n
appointed   for   the   dissolution   of   the   Board   under   this   sub-<\/p>\n
section   in   such   manner   as   may   be   agreed   upon   between   the <\/p>\n
Governments of the successor States within one month of such <\/p>\n
dissolution or if no agreement is reached, in such manner as the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   may,   by   order,   determine   subject   to <\/p>\n
reconciliation   and   finalisation   of   the   liabilities   which   shall   be <\/p>\n
completed   within   three   months   from   the   date   of   such <\/p>\n
                                                                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
        dissolution   by   the   mutual   agreement   between   the   successor <\/p>\n
        States or failing such agreement by the direction of the Central <\/p>\n
        Government:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             Provided further that an interest at the rate of two per <\/p>\n
        cent   higher   than   the   Cash   Credit   interest   shall   be   paid   on <\/p>\n
        outstanding   unpaid   dues   of   the   coal   supplied   to   the   Board   by <\/p>\n
        the public sector coal company till the liquidation of such dues <\/p>\n
        by   the   concerned   State   Electricity   Board   constituted   in   the <\/p>\n
        successor   States   on   or   after   the   date   appointed   for   the <\/p>\n
        dissolution of the Board under this sub-section.\n<\/p>\n
         ………………………..”\n<\/p>\n
In  terms   of  sub-section   3   of  section   62,   Jharkhand  State   Electricity   Board <\/p>\n
came into existence on April 1, 2001. After that date it is no longer possible <\/p>\n
for the Bihar State Electricity Board to reinstate the respondents as security <\/p>\n
guards   at   Patratu   Thermal   Power   Station   where   they   were   working   at   the <\/p>\n
time of dismissal from service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.         Thus,   looked   at   from   any   angle,   the   judgments   passed   by   the   first <\/p>\n
appellate   court   and   the   High   Court   are   untenable   in   law   and   the   decree <\/p>\n
passed by the trial court, in the absence of Jharkhand State Electricity Board <\/p>\n
having   been   impleaded   as   a   defendant,   is   rendered   non-executable   in   the <\/p>\n
State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.      Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior advocate, appearing for the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
respondents,   submitted   that   the   case   may   be   transferred   to   an   appropriate <\/p>\n
                                                                                                  1<\/span><\/p>\n
court in the State of Jharkhand from the stage of the first appeal against the <\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Patna. And before that court the <\/p>\n
plaintiffs-respondents   might   take   steps   for   impleadment   of   the   Jharkhand <\/p>\n
State Electricity Board as one of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.           We are completely disinclined to take that course for the following <\/p>\n
reasons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.      It may be recalled that the respondents were dismissed from service <\/p>\n
on November 11, 1975. They filed the suit four years later at Patna and tried <\/p>\n
to overcome the bar of limitation by pleading that they first came to know <\/p>\n
about their dismissal from service when they went to collect their wages in <\/p>\n
October, 1976. The Munsiff strangely accepted the plea.<\/p>\n
15.    Secondly, before filing the suit at Patna, they had filed suits being title <\/p>\n
suit Nos. 65, 66, 67 and 72 of 1975 before the Munsiff, Hazaribagh. Those <\/p>\n
suits   were   dismissed   for   default.   Before   the   Patna   court   an   objection   was <\/p>\n
raised on behalf of the defendants-appellants regarding the maintainability of <\/p>\n
the   suit   in   terms   of   Order   9   Rule   4   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.   The <\/p>\n
plaints of the suits filed at Hazaribagh were produced before the Patna court <\/p>\n
but the objection was overruled on the ground that the Board omitted to get <\/p>\n
                                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
the   plaintiffs’   signatures   on   the   plaints   and   vakalatnamas   filed   before   the <\/p>\n
Hazaribagh court formally proved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.     Thirdly and most importantly the suit filed by the plaintiffs was itself <\/p>\n
not maintainable. It may be recalled that plaintiffs worked as security guards <\/p>\n
at the Thermal Power Station, they were, therefore, without doubt workmen <\/p>\n
within   the   meaning   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947   and   their   service <\/p>\n
conditions were governed by the standing orders framed under the Industrial <\/p>\n
Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the relevant rules framed by <\/p>\n
the Board.  It was, therefore,  open to the respondents  to raise an industrial <\/p>\n
dispute concerning their dismissal from service. A suit seeking reinstatement <\/p>\n
was therefore clearly barred and not maintainable. The issue stands settled <\/p>\n
by the decision of this Court in  The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar  <\/p>\n
Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Others,<\/a> (1976) 1 SCC 496. In paragraphs <\/p>\n
23 and 24 of the judgment this Court held as follows: – <\/p>\n
               “23.   To   sum   up,   the   principles   applicable   to   the <\/p>\n
               jurisdiction   of   the   Civil   Court   in   relation   to   an <\/p>\n
               industrial dispute may be stated thus:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (i)     If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor <\/p>\n
                       does   it   relate   to   enforcement   of   any   other <\/p>\n
                       right under the Act the remedy  lies  only in <\/p>\n
                       the civil court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii)    If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising <\/p>\n
                       out of a right or liability under the general or <\/p>\n
                       common   law   and   not   under   the   Act,   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
                        jurisdiction   of   the   civil   court   is   alternative, <\/p>\n
                        leaving   it   to   the   election   of   the   suitor <\/p>\n
                        concerned   to   choose   his   remedy   for   the <\/p>\n
                        relief which is competent to be granted in a <\/p>\n
                        particular remedy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               (iii)    If   the   industrial   dispute   relates   to   the <\/p>\n
                        enforcement   of   a   right   or   an   obligation <\/p>\n
                        created under the Act, then the only remedy <\/p>\n
                        available   to   the   suitor   is   to   get   an <\/p>\n
                        adjudication under the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iv)        If the right which is sought to be enforced <\/p>\n
                        is   a   right   created   under   the   Act   such   as <\/p>\n
                        Chapter   V-A   then   the   remedy   for   its <\/p>\n
                        enforcement   is   either   Section 33-C or   the <\/p>\n
                        raising   of   an   industrial   dispute,   as   the   case <\/p>\n
                        may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
               24.  We may, however, in relation to principle No. <\/p>\n
               2 stated above hasten to add that there will hardly <\/p>\n
               be   a   dispute   which   will   be   an   industrial   dispute <\/p>\n
               within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and <\/p>\n
               yet   will   be   one   arising   out   of   a   right   or   liability <\/p>\n
               under   the   general   or   common   law   only   and   not <\/p>\n
               under   the   Act.   Such   a   contingency,   for   example, <\/p>\n
               may   arise   in   regard   to   the   dismissal   of   an <\/p>\n
               unsponsored   workman   which   in   view   of   the <\/p>\n
               provision   of   law   contained   in   Section 2A of   the <\/p>\n
               Act   will   be   an   industrial   dispute   even   though   it <\/p>\n
               may   otherwise   be   an   individual   dispute.   Civil <\/p>\n
               Courts, therefore, will have hardly an occasion to <\/p>\n
               deal with the type of cases falling under principle <\/p>\n
               No.   2.   Cases   of   industrial   disputes   by   and   large, <\/p>\n
               almost   invariably,   are   bound   to   be   covered   by <\/p>\n
               principle No. 3 stated above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
17.         We,   thus,   come   to   the   inescapable   conclusion   that   the   plaintiffs-<\/p>\n
respondents’ suit was itself not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
18.      For the reasons discussed above the appeal is allowed. The judgments <\/p>\n
and   decree   coming   under   challenge   are   set   aside   and   the   suit   filed   by   the <\/p>\n
plaintiffs-respondents is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.      In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. <\/p>\n
                                                         ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         (Aftab Alam)<\/p>\n
                                                         ……………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         (R.M. Lodha)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
September 8, 2011.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha REPORTABL E IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7754 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.126 OF 2009] Bihar State Electricity Board & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2848,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011"},"wordCount":2848,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011","name":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-03T23:55:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-elect-board-anr-vs-ram-deo-prasad-singh-ors-on-8-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bihar State Elect.Board & Anr vs Ram Deo Prasad Singh & Ors on 8 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55544","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}