Dismissed

Shrikant Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2019WPC/1200/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a notice dated 24.08.2017 regarding reconstitution of a municipality. The Court held that since the petitioner had already made the objection mentioned in the petition, the authority should decide it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed directing the respondent to decide the objection in accordance with law.

Shrikant Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1200 of 2018

¶3

--------

¶4

Shrikant Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of shri Binod Bihari.

¶5

Ajay Ram, aged about 60 years, son of Late Gobind Bihari. Both residents of Village- Shahpur, Tola-Simlatand, P.O.- Shahpur, P.S.Chainpur, District- Palamau.

¶6

…… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.- Medni Nagar, DistrictPalamau, at Medni Nagar.

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medni Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Medni Nagar, District- Palamau at Medni Nagar.

¶11

Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Medni Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Medni Nagar, District- Palamau at Medni Nagar.

¶12

…… Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, S.C.-VII : Mr. Master Akash, A.C. to S.C.-VII ----------------------------

¶17

06 / Dated 12^th June, 2019

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the notice dated 24.08.2017 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the objection has been sought for one or the others for reconstituting of municipality in Municipal General Election, 2018.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in pursuance to the aforesaid notice that the due objection has been made as would be evident from the statement made at paragraph-14 of the writ petition.

¶20

Mr. Navin Kumar, learned S.C.-VII has submitted that since the notice has not been replied by the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained.

¶21

In view of such submission and after consideration of the pleading made in the writ petition as also the prayer for quashing the notice dated 24.08.2017 since the petitioner has already been made an objection as has been stated in Paragraph-14 of the writ petition, if that be so, it is up to the authority to take decision in the matter in accordance with law, if such objection has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notice for the reason aforesaid.

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed directing the respondent

¶24

that objection, if any filed by the petitioner, if not decided, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶25

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶26

Madhav

Shrikant Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Pal Verma Vs Qurban Quraisi

Ravi Narayan Mukherjee Vs Dr Rajendra Kumar Hazra And Ors.

Ms Magadh Spun Pipes Limited through Its Director Sri Subash Abhimanu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Dr Sanjay Kumar Gorai Vs Smt Tanushree Gorai

Prabodh Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand