Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice for alleged fraud. Finding no dispute and 14 years elapsed, no order was passed.
No order was passed in the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4010 of 2005
Ravi Prakash Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others … Respondents
Versus ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, S.C. (L&C) II ---
Order No. 09 Dated 22nd July, 2019
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned S.C. (L&C) II.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice as contained in memo No. 524/05 dated 06.07.2005 issued by Deputy Collector, Incharge of Public Grievance Cell, East Singhbhum whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before him on 25.07.2005 along with written statement for taking legal steps for the alleged fraudulent action on the part of the petitioner.
The precursor appears to be from an agreement entered into between the petitioner and Anita Singh for construction of a multi-storied building and for violation of certain terms and conditions thereof a complaint was made before the respondent No. 4 consequent to which the notice dated 06.07.2005 has been issued which is impugned to this writ petition.
Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned S.C. (L&C) II referring to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by him has submitted that once the writ petition has been filed, the case has been consigned to the record room. He has also referred to a communication addressed to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur wherein it has been stated that no dispute exists between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4.
Considering the averment made in the supplementary counter affidavit and also considering the fact that almost 14 years have passed since the complaint was made by the respondent No. 4 before the Public Grievance Cell and since the letter addressed to the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur does not reveal any dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, no order need be passed in this writ petition.
This writ application stands disposed of.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
Ravi Prakash Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
