Disposed

Smt Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar And Ors.

Jharkhand HC12 Jan 2015WPC/57/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached this court in a writ petition regarding outstanding dues and a claimed One Time Settlement Scheme of the respondent B.S.F.C., which was listed against her. Counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the designated officer.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to approach designated officer by filing representation within four weeks; B.S.F.C. directed to provide detailed calculation chart.

Smt Pushpa Devi Vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 57 of 2015

¶2

Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o L.S. -17, High Court Colony, Harmu, Ranchi ... ...Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Bihar

¶5

The Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna Secretariat, Patna, Bihar

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Industry Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Secretariat, Patna, Bihar

¶7

The Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna, Bihar, 800001.

¶8

The Bihar State Financial Corporation, through its Managing Director, Patna, Bihar

¶9

The Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation P/64, Industrial Area Kokar, Ranchi

¶10

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Incharge Jharkhand Division Branch 64-P, Kokar Industrial Area, Kokar, Ranchi

¶11

.. ... Respondents

¶12

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶13

For the Petitioner : M/s Ram Kishore Prasad, Praful Jojo, Advocates For Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 :Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate : Mr. A. K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Binit Chandra, G.A. Bihar

¶14

02/12.1.2015 Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 raises preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that there is alternative remedy to the petitioner.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner raises grievance that the respondent-B.S.F.C. has not provided a detailed calculation chart disclosing the total liability of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the “One Time Settlement Scheme” of the B.S.F.C., the petitioner approached the

¶16

respondent-B.S.F.C. however, no decision was taken by the respondent in this regard.

¶17

Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-B.S.F.C. refers to communication dated 06.09.2013 and submits that outstanding dues has already been communicated to the petitioner vide said letter.

¶18

The learned counsel for the

¶19

respodnent-B.S.F.C. disputed the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that no “One Time Settlement Scheme” has been formulated by the respondent-B.S.F.C. The learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.F.C. has further submitted that the petitioner has already sold the mortgage property.

¶20

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the designated officer, raising all the pleas which have been raised in the present proceeding.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the designated officer by filing the representation raising all the pleas which are available to the petitioner in law. The petitioner is at liberty to prefer representation within four weeks and if such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same would be decided within a

¶22

period of next six weeks. It is made clear that withdrawal of the writ petition would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. In fairness, the respondent-B.S.F.C. is expected to provide a detailed calculation chart to the petitioner.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

( Shree Chandrashekhar, J .)

¶25

Satyarthi/-

Smt Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Naushad Shah Alias Paklu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Lalith S Rao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Indrajit Roy Vs National Highways Authroity Of India Through Its Chief Executive And Ors.

Shambhu Nath Singh Vs The Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman And Others

Smt Manorama Mahato Vs Jharkhand Academic Council

Sigma E Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others