Disposed

Photolal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Dec 2018WPC/1936/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by farmers seeking directions for payment of the minimum support price for Kharif crops harvested in 2015-16 by their agent. The court granted them liberty to file fresh representations before the Deputy Commissioner, directing receipt and a decision within twelve weeks after proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representations; direction to Deputy Commissioner to enquire and decide within twelve weeks after providing opportunity of hearing.

Photolal Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1936 of 2018

¶3

Photolal Yadav

¶4

Bijay Poddar

¶5

Pramod Kumar Mishra

¶6

Saudagar Mandal

¶7

Bajrang Mahto

¶8

Rajesh Kumar Mahto

¶9

Sulochana Devi

¶10

Brahma Nand Prasad

¶11

Amrit Singh

¶12

Dipak Kumar

¶13

Pradip Thakur

¶14

Permanand Choudhary ….. Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Jharkhand

¶17

The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, Godda

¶19

The District Co-operative Officer, Godda

¶20

The Block Development Officer, Thakurgangti, Godda

¶21

Bablu Mandal, President, Amarpur PACCS, Thakurgangti, Godda

¶22

….. Respondents -----

¶23

CORAM

¶24

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶25

¶26

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vibhor Mayank For the State: Mr. A.C to G.P-IV

¶27

¶28

05/11.12.2018 In the present writ petition, the petitioners claiming themselves to be the farmers, have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay them the minimum support price of Kharif crops for the season 2015-16 taken by their agent (respondent No.6).

¶29

The grievance of the petitioners is that though the respondent No.6 had lifted the Kharaif crops from the petitioners in the season 2015-16, yet the minimum support price for the same has not been paid to them till date. Aggrieved by non-payment of the minimum support price for the lifted Kharif crops, the petitioners filed several representations before the respondent No.3, however, the same remained un-responded.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, the petitioners are given liberty to file fresh representation(s) before the respondent No.3. On receipt of such representation(s), the respondent No.3, after making proper enquiry in the matter and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their

¶31

representatives, shall take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation(s).

¶32

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty

¶33

and direction.

¶34

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶35

Satish/-

Photolal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Photolal Yadav v. 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

Sohrab Ali Vs the Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Pawandham Mandir, Shri Digamba Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

N P Construction through Its Manager Ajit Kumar Singh Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Rajendra Prasad Vs Authorized Officer Canara Bank And Anr.

Ms Shakambari Nirman Private Limited Represented By One Of Its Director Sri Naresh Prasad Lodha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Katyani Coke And Minerals Through Its Partner Dinesh Kumar Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.