JUDGMENT The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Indian Association of Lawyers, Bihar Chapter and member of District Council of the Communist Party of India. He filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation with a prayer to restrain the respondents from procuring the supply of P.S.C. poles from the private pole manufacturers when sufficient stock of poles is available with the manufacturers’ centres established by the respondents themselves. 2. Apart from narrating various instances, the petitioner filed certain annexures to demonstrate that the Bihar State Electricity Board has established as many as nine P.S.C. pole manufacturers at various places and though adequate stock is available in those centres, a decision has been taken by the respondents to purchase the poles from the private agency at higher cost. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board has since been re-organized and one power holding company by name “Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited” and four subsidiary companies for distribution, transmission and generation of power supply have been incorporated. It is also stated that such subsidiary companies are functioning under their own parameters, with the authority to evolve their own polices and every step would be taken to ensure that the public fund is not wasted. 4. Heard Mr. Madan Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. We are basically convinced on perusal of the annexures that though there was adequate stock of poles available in the State, orders have been passed favouring the purchase of poles at higher cost. It is certainly a matter of public concern. We could have certainly interfered in the matter but for the fact that substantial change of organization has taken place. Each subsidiary company has a separate identity and they function in the context of supply of electricity. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to approach this Court and/or to take any other steps if the same practice is being continued by the concerned agency. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. The interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.