Disposed

Ganga Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jul 2018WPC/1758/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioners alleged damage to their residential house due to mining blasting by respondent no. 5. The High Court granted liberty to file a representation with the Deputy Commissioner for an enquiry and direction to pass an order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation; direction to respondent no. 2 to enquire and pass order within four months.

Ganga Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (C) No. 1758 of 2018

¶4

Ganga Kumari 2. Nitu Kumari ... … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh

¶8

Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh

¶9

Circle Officer, Mandu, Ramgarh

¶10

West Bokaro Colliery of M/s Tata Steel Limited, Ghato Tanr, Mandu through its Manager (Administration) … … Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-II -----

¶13

Order No. 04 Dated: 16.07.2018

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to take suitable steps to prevent the damage of residential house of the petitioners on account of blasting by the respondent no. 5.

¶15

2. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they have been in lawful possession of the part of Plot No. 388 under Khata No. 48 in Mouza-Barughutu, District-Ramgarh, measuring an area of 50 decimal by making residential house over the same.

¶16

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their residential house has been damaged by continuous blasting during the mining operation by the respondent no. 5. Being affected by the said blasting, the petitioners have also preferred application before various authorities including the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. On receipt of the petitioners’ complaint, the National Human Rights Commission vide its letter dated 12.11.2014 has directed the respondent no. 2 –Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh to look into the matter and take appropriate action within a timeframe. However, till date no step has been taken by the respondent no. 2 in this regard.

¶17

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the writ petition, the petitioners are given

¶18

¶19

liberty to file fresh representation(s) before the respondent no. 2 raising their grievance. On receipt of the said representation(s), the respondent no. 2 after making suitable enquiry in the matter, shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation(s).

¶20

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Manish

Ganga Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Vijay Shankar Alias Chun Chun Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Om Prakash Choubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Mohan Timber Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain Vs Union Of India Through Chairman Ministry Of Steel And Ors.

Ms Maa Mundeshwari Enterprises Represented through One of Its Partner Lalit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Industry Mines and Geology

Ravindra Nath Mukherjee Alias Ravi Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Department of Home