The High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a Sub-Divisional Officer's order under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act. Hold
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.989 of 2018
--------
Prabodh Kumar Tiwari, aged about 47 years, Son of Late Sahdeo Tiwari, Resident of Village-Dharidulampur, P.O.-Deosang, P.S.- Kunda, DistrictDeoghar. …… Petitioner
Versus
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent (State) : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I ----------------------------
06 / Dated 12th June, 2019
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Deoghar is under challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out the case for filing this writ petition ignoring the forum of alternative remedy of appeal as provided under the Santhal Pragnas Tenancy Act, on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given.
Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I has submitted by referring to the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given, is incorrect since which would be evident from the impugned order wherein the petitioner in terms of the show cause notice has responded to it and its consideration the impugned order has been passed, therefore, this case is not maintainable, therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained.
Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority for its consideration.
Upon such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
same is being allowed.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid, if he so wishes.
2
If the petitioner will approach before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall take decision within four weeks in accordance with law from the date of filing of such appeal on its own merit after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Madhav
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an order under the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal is provided.
Whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prabodh Kumar Tiwari
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar
The Circle Officer, Deoghar
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
