The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting his claim regarding his date of birth by Bharat Coking Coal Limited. No petitioner appeared, and the High Court found no illegality, dismissing the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed with no case made out for interference.
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. (S) No.4826OF 2009
Dasrath Tanti son of late Ishri Tanti resident of village Lauriha,P.S Belhar,District Bank(Bihar), at present residing at South Balihari Colliery,P.O Kusunda,P.S Putki,Dist. Dhanbad.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cumChief Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan,Koyla Nagar,Dhanbad P.ODhanbad,P.S Saraidhela,Dist.Dhanbad..
2.General Manager,Putki Balihari Area of M/s B.C.C.L P.O Kusunda,P.S Putki District.Dhanbad.
3.Project Officer, South Balihari Section,Putki Balihari Project Colliery of M/S B.C.C.L
4.Senior Personal Officer, Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s B.C.CL P.O and P.S Bhagabandh,Dist. Dhanbad.
….. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : None
For theB.C.C.L Mr.Kaustav Panda Advocate
Order No.8 : Dated 6th August, 2019
When the case is called out, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mr. Kaustav Panda is present on behalf of the B.C.C.L
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 17.9.2009.
The petitioner earlier moved before this court by way of filing a petition being W.P(S) No. 1299 of 2009 which was disposed of on 10.7.2009 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the claim of the petitioner about his date of birth by the respondents authorities. Pursuant to that, the impugned order has been passed whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and authority concerned taking into account the various documents reserved with B.C.C.L passed a reasoned order whereby the claim of the petitioner about date of birth has been negated.
Looking to the said reasoned order it transpires that there is no illegality in the order passed by the authority concerned. As such no case is made out for interference and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order rejecting the petitioner's claim regarding his date of birth by the B.C.C.L authorities.
Dasrath Tanti
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
