Dismissed

Ghatshila Block President Cum Secretary v. the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2018WPC/1242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging government notifications requiring online procedures for tree felling in East Singhbhum. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as no specific instance of harassment was brought on record.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is not maintainable due to absence of cause of action. Petitioners allowed liberty to file fresh petition if cause arises.

Ghatshila Block President Cum… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.1242 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Ghatshila Block President-cum-Secretary Desh Bichar, East Singhbhum.

¶5

Bahadur Soren. .......... Petitioners.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Forest Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Ranchi.

¶9

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶10

The Directorate Environment and Wildlife Conservation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶11

The President, Tribe Advisory Council of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶12

.......... Respondents.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

----For the Petitioners : M/s Satyendra Agarwal & Nitya Nand Mahato, Advocates For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.C. to G.A.III ----- Order No.05 Date: 03.07.2018

¶16

The petitioners have put challenge to the order contained in Memo No.1052 dated 24^th February, 2016, notification contained in Memo No.4404 dated 24^th October, 2017 and letter contained in Memo No.1556 dated 10^th April, 2017, whereby a decision has been taken by the Government of Jharkhand to stop offline procedure for felling of trees and for issuance of transit permit for the transportation thereof and further to start online procedure for the same under the head “ease of doing business”.

¶17

The main ground for assailing the aforesaid notification, order and the letter issued on behalf of the Government of Jharkhand is that the same are unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Article 244(1)read with V^th Schedule of the Constitution of India, as the area of operation of the petitioner no.1 falls under East Singhbhum district, which is a scheduled area. According to the petitioners, the said notification as well as the order/letter are detrimental to the cause of the scheduled tribes, as the same confer powers to the authorities to verify the details of the trees grown by tribal villagers in their own land situated within the scheduled area and felling of trees by them. By

¶18

-2-

¶19

reasons of the impugned notification, keeping details of log register and stacked timber has been made mandatory for the tribal villagers, who have also to get themselves registered online for the said purpose. Moreover, all the information regarding the trees grown by them in their land are to be shared with the authorities through online system. The respondent-State of Jharkhand by issuing the impugned notification/order/letter has transgressed the provisions of Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, under the head of “ease of doing business” the poor tribal have been put to great hardship and harassment.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the contents of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners have not brought on record any instance so as to prima facie show to this Court that the respondent-State of Jharkhand by issuing impugned notification/order/letter has put the tribal inhabitants of East Singhbhum district to any harassment.

¶21

It is a settled law that in absence of any cause of action, no notification can be put to challenge before the Constitutional Court. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. union of India, reported in (2004)6 SCC 254, Para-19 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that passing of any law/legislation by itself does not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arises therefrom.

¶22

Since there appears to be no cause of action with the petitioners by bringing on record any instance to this effect, the writ petition in present form is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if any cause of action so arises in this regard.

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Sanjay/

Ghatshila Block President Cum Secretary v. the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghatshila Block President Cum Secretary v. the Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Banshi Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Ms Siyaram Enterprises through Its Proprietor Siyaram Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Drinking Water and Sanitation

Sant Kumar Deo Vs Rural Dev Dept

Nirmal Kumar Kanjilal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indu Singh Vs State of Jharkhand