Disposed

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak v. Urban Development Department

Jharkhand HC13 Dec 2018WPC/5492/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notices to remove his tea stall as illegal encroachment. Court held writ of mandamus cannot be issued as place was never legally allotted. Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh representation with authority to decide as expeditiously as possible.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh representation with respondent no. 5 to decide within twelve weeks.

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak Vs Urban… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.-5492 of 2017

¶4

Indranath Rajak @ Indar Nath Rajak …Petitioner

¶5

-V e r s u s-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag

¶9

The Chairperson, Nagar Parishad, Hazaribag

¶10

The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hazaribag

¶11

The P.A. Saroj, Contractor, Taxi Stand, Vahan Parao, Hazaribag

¶12

…. Respondents

¶13

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to AAG (Mr.H.K.Mehta) For the Res. No.5 :- Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate

¶15

Order No.-05 Dated: 13.12.2018

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 4626 dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), memo no. 69 dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and memo no. 127 dated 11.02.2017 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) by the respondent no. 5- Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Hazaribag whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove his Tea Stall situated at the footpath within the premises of Taxi Stand, Vahan Parao, Hazaribag treating the same as illegal encroachment on the government land. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to consider the petitioner’s representations and to allot the said place to him for Tea Stall as he has been running the same for the last 15 years.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running his Tea Stall at the aforesaid place for last 15 years. He has been provided electrical connection as well as he has been recognized as street vendor by Hazaribag Municipal Council as would be evident from the Street Vendor Survey Receipt issued to him on 07.01.2016.

¶18

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner has not been legally allotted the said place where he is running the said Tea Stall, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondent-authorities. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been running the Tea Stall at the said place and has made several representations before Municipal Council, Hazaribag, he is at liberty to ventilate his grievance by filing a fresh representation before the respondent no. 5 who, on receipt of the same, shall take appropriate decision in this regard keeping in view the relevant laws, as expeditious as possible preferably within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶20

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

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Ritesh

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak v. Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indranath Rajak Alias Indar Nath Rajak v. Urban Development Department

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

Mr Vidya Sagar Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr Its Pr Secretary Deptt of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Sudarshan Panday And Anr. Vs Revenue Department

Ratan Kumar Lal Vs State Bank Of India Through Its Chief Manager And Ors.

Nancy Kanak Lata Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anadi Nath Swarnkar Vs The State Ofjharkhand And Anr.

Shamim Ali Vs State of Jharkhand