Dismissed

Satish Kumar Lakhmani Alias Satish Lakhmani v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Jan 2020WPC/6188/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of certificate case proceedings and an arrest warrant. The court found the petition infructuous as the objection petition under the relevant Act had already been decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed due to absence of the petitioner and lack of substantive merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed.

Satish Kumar Lakhmani Alias Satish Lakhmani Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6188 of 2015

¶3

Satish Kumar Lakhmani @ Satish Lakhmani Son of Sri S.K. Lakhmani, Resident of Sindhipara, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner-cum-collector, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), District-Pakur

¶7

District Transport Officer, Pakur, P.O. Pakur, P.S. Pakur (T), DistrictPakur. ...... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. Gautam Kumar, S.C. Mines-I : Mr. Suraj Prakash, A.C. to S.C. Mines

¶11

08/Dated 06^th January, 2020

¶12

On 28.11.2019 this matter was adjourned on prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, when the matter is taken up nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the proceeding of Certificate Case No.14 of 2001 and also for quashing the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by the Respondent No.3 whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that without deciding the objection petition filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the order dated 04.06.2013 has been passed.

¶14

Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by way of referring to paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit submits that the petition filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has already been decided by the Certificate Officer, Pakur, after considering all the relevant facts and figures and hearing the parties concerned that denial of liabilities submitted by the petitioner has duly been rejected by

¶15

¶16

an order dated 17.08.2005. The said order is brought on record as AnnexureA to the counter affidavit. The order dated 17.08.2005 is not under challenged in this writ petition.

¶17

In view of the facts that the order dated 17.08.2005 contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has already been passed against the petitioner. Hence, the prayer made in this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

Raja /-

Satish Kumar Lakhmani Alias Satish Lakhmani v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Lakhmani Alias Satish Lakhmani v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Smt.Champa Devi Parmar Alias Champa Ben Parmar And Ors. Vs Birwa Munda And Ors.

Ms Govind Promoters Private Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Ankush Agarwal Vs the Official Liquidator Jharkhand High Court

Prahlad Mahto and Ors. Vs Collectariate

Shashi Kant Pandey Vs Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Ritesh Ranjan and Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

Devendra Nath Mahato and Ors. Vs Water Resources Department