M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus upon the State of Jharkhand and its functionaries to appoint persons of impeachable and highest integrity and having specialised knowledge in their respective fields to the posts of Chairman and Members of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

2. Before entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to first discuss about the developments which took place after the filing of the writ petition. Since petitioner had apprehension that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent namely, functionaries of the State of Jharkhand may fill up the post of Chairman and the Members of the State Electricity Board, this Court passed interim order on 7.3.2001 directing that if any appointment is made by the State Government to the post of Chairman or Members of the Board, that shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The State Government during the pendency of the writ petition constituted a Board and notified the appointment of the Chairman and the Members of the Board. Besides ex officio members, following persons were appointed as Chairman and Members of the Board :--

(1) Shri Rajiv Ranjan as Chairman-cum-Member Administration.

(2) Shri Sachida Nand Akhauri as Member-Distribution.

(3) Shri Niranjan Rai as Member-Finance.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General were heard at length on the question of validity of appointment of the aforesaid persons as Chairman and Members of the Board. This Court thereafter by a reasoned judgment dated 21.9.2001 [see 2001 (3) JCR 296 (Jhr)] allowed the writ petition and the appointment of Mr. Rajeev Ranjan and Mr. Sachida Nand Akhauri, Chairman and the Members of the Board were quashed and set aside.

4. After disposal of the writ petition, Mr. Sachida Nand Akhauri filed civil review petition being Civil Review No. 120 of 2001 and the State of Jharkhand also filed civil review petition being Civil Review No. 110-of 2001. However, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan neither appeared nor filed any review petition with respect to the aforesaid judgment rather he moved the Supreme Court challenging the judgment by filing SLP (Civil) No. 18514/2001. In the said special leave petition, the Supreme Court passed the following interim order on 19.11.2001 :--"Counter affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks, thereafter. List thereafter.

Status quo in the meantime.

The pendency of this SLP will not prevent the High Court from deciding the review application."

5. When the aforementioned review applications were placed before this Court, the same were adjourned for the time being because of the pendency of the aforesaid SLP in the Supreme Court. However, on 18.3.2001 when those review applications again listed for hearing, learned Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner Mr. Sachida Nand Akhauri jointly prayed to the Court for disposal of the review applications. Consequently, those two review applications were finally heard. The sole grievance of the review petitioner Mr. Sachida Nand Akhauri was that the judgment dated 21.9.2001 was passed and his appointment as Member of the Board was quashed without issuing notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him, as admittedly he was not even made party respondent in the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Advocate Generals contention in the review petition was that the State would be satisfied if this Court hear the writ application to the only and limited extent of examining the validity of the aforesaid appointment after issuing notices to those persons.

7. As stated above, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan did not file any review petition. However, before finally deciding the review applications, this Court by way of abundant precaution issued notices to Mr