Disposed

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2016WPC/3518/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition filed challenging a notice to vacate premises. Instead of adjudicating merits, the court directed the petitioner to approach the issuing authority with objections and supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Circle Officer, Nirsa, with objections and documents within two weeks; interim order vacated.

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3518 of 2016

¶2

Bijay Kumar @ Bijay Yadav

¶3

-------Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

¶7

Circle Officer, Nirsa Circle, Dhanbad ---

¶8

----- Respondents

¶9

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Resp - State: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, GA

¶11

¶12

03/ 01.08.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶13

On 13.07.2016, following order was passed taking note of the plea of the

¶14

petitioner.

¶15

“Surviving defect is ignored.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned notice at Annexure-3 dated 29.06.2016 issued by the Circle Officer, Nirsa, petitioner has been asked to vacate some premises of Electricity Department acting upon some complaint. Apparently, there are no description of the property, nor is there any proceeding in respect thereof.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Respondent State prays for and is allowed two weeks time to obtain instruction in the matter. 4. List the case accordingly thereafter on 1^st August 2016 under the same heading. It is made clear that affidavit should be filed before that date.

¶18

Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 29.06.2016 issued by the Circle Officer, Nirsa (Annexure-3).”

¶19

Learned Government Advocate Mr. Atanu Banerjee has received instruction from the Respondents that on 29.06.2016 when the petitioner did not appear with the relevant documents in support of his case, the impugned notice was issued on the same day by the Respondent No. 3 - Circle Officer, Nirsa. However, this fact has not been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, impugned notice has not been acted upon. Petitioner should be directed to approach the Circle Officer, Nirsa with his objection, if any, supported by all supporting documents and all available grounds of law and facts, if any. The Competent Authority / Circle Officer, Nirsa would consider his objection and take a decision in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not have objection to it.

¶20

In that view of the matter, writ petition is being disposed of without getting

¶21

¶22

into the merits of the matter with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Circle Officer, Nirsa (Respondent No. 3) with his objection, if any, within a period of two weeks from today, with all supporting documents and any available grounds of law and facts in his favour. On his appearance or on failure to do so within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the Respondent No. 3 / Competent Authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and take a decision within a reasonable time.

¶23

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 13.07.2016 stands vacated.

¶24

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )

¶25

Ranjeet/

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav v. The State Of Jharkhand 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

Praveen Shankar Dayal Vs Central Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager And Ors.

Sahdeo Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Permanand Bhagat Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Bhado Oraon Vs Revenue Department

Somnath Tirkey Vs Revenue Department