Disposed

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC10 Jul 2018WPC/560/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an advertisement for re-allotment of店铺 kiosks. The petitioners claimed lawful occupation and non-violation of terms. The court directed them to file a fresh representation with the Deputy Commissioner for a decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given liberty to file fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner; respondent directed to decide within six weeks.

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 560 of 2018

¶3

Abul Kalam @ Abul Kalam Ansari

¶4

Safar Ali Ansari ... … Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega

¶7

The District Welfare Officer, Simdega

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Kurdeg, Simdega

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶11

----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, AC to GA

¶12

-----

¶13

Order No. 04 Dated: 10.07.2018

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the advertisement dated 29.12.2017 published in the daily newspaper (Hindustan Hindi) to the extent that two kiosks of Kurdeg Block in the Simdega district has been sought to be re-allotted.

¶15

2. The case of the petitioners is that they were allotted two kiosks vide letter of allotment contained in memo no. 507(ii) dated 01.06.2016 issued by the respondent no. 4 – Block Development Officer, Kurdeg. In terms of the said allotment, the petitioners occupied the said kiosks and have been carrying on their respective businesses. They have deposited the required rent in the Block Najarat regularly till August, 2017. Thereafter, the authorities have not been accepting the rent from the petitioners. Further case of the petitioners is that they are peacefully carrying on their businesses and have not violated any terms and conditions of allotment. Despite the said fact, the impugned advertisement dated 29.12.2017 has been published for re-allotment of five kiosks in Simdega block including two kiosks occupied by the petitioners in Kurdeg block. The petitioners also made representations before the different authorities of the district for allowing them to be in occupation of the said kiosks, however, no decision on the same has been taken by any authority so far.

¶16

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the writ petition, the petitioners are given liberty to file fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, raising their grievances. On receipt of the said representation(s), the respondent no. 2 shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation(s).

¶17

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

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

Manish

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abul Kalam Alias Abul Kalam Ansari 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

MD Akhlaque Vs the State of Jharkhand

United Coal Works Union through Union Representative Naresh Prasad Singh Vs Union of India Ministry of Labour and Employment

Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. Represented Through Senior Manager Project Accounts Mr G Jagadeeswara Rao Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Prasad Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Road Construction Department

Akhileshwar Singh Vs Rural Dev Dept

Syed Mohammad Qaisar Hassan And Anr. Vs Urban Development Department