Single judge disposed of a writ petition filed for quashing an eviction order under the Public Premises Act, 1971, relying on a previous similar order granting liberty to pursue pending appeals or raise available points.
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. 4607 of 2017
Dilip Kumar Jha …Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
...Respondents
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the SAIL :- Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, J.C. to Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Order No.-06 Dated: 04.06.2020
The present case is taken up through Audio/Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.05.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No. 04 of 2017 whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Estate officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in A.E. Case No. 70 of 2014 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to call for different documents relating to lease and seeking certain information regarding allotment of all the quarters of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited (HSCL) as well as its rent being paid by other persons, has been upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that similar writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4600 of 2017 (Rikta Ganguli Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro & Anr.) has already been disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.09.2019.
4. Perused the order dated 28.09.2019 passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under:
2
5. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, J.C. to Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-SAIL, accepts the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that W.P.(C) No. 4600 of 2017 in which similar prayer was made, has already been disposed of by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-SAIL, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the appellate court if the same is pending by now and to raise all available points with him.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rikta Ganguli Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro & Anr.Referred¶3
W.P.(C) No. 4600 of 2017 (Rikta Ganguli Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro & Anr.)
Dilip Kumar Jha
Steel Authority of India Limited/Bokaro Steel Plant, B.S. City, Bokaro
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, B.S. City, Bokaro
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
