Disposed

Vinita Siddharth v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2023WPC/2743/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ filed seeking direction to initiate Section 133 Cr.P.C. proceedings and remove plastic scraps/illegal structures. Court disposed of petition granting liberty to file fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to prefer fresh application before Respondent No. 3; Respondent No. 3 directed to initiate proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. after calling report.

Vinita Siddharth Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.2743 of 2020

¶2

¶3

Vinita Siddharth .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶6

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

¶7

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi.

¶8

The Inspector-cum-Officer-in-charge,

¶9

Chutia Police Station, Ranchi.

¶10

Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi.

¶11

Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi.

¶12

Manpuran Sahu

¶13

Saurabh Kumar

¶14

.......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the State : A.C. to G.A.I For Res. Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate ----- Order No.05 Date: 21.03.2023

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.3 to initiate a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the report of the respondent no.4 as contained in memo no.1917 dated 25^th June, 2019. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos.3, 4 & 6 to remove plastic scraps from the City Centre Shopping Complex Premises, Chutia and to restrain the respondent nos.7 and 8 from carrying their unauthorized business of plastic scraps from the said shopping complex. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos.3 and 4 to demolish the illegal construction made by the respondent nos.7 and 8 over the drain running beside the said shopping complex.

¶16

The present writ petition was earlier taken up on 21^st January, 2021 and on the said date, the respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as respondent nos.5 and 6 were directed to file respective counter

¶17

-2-

¶18

affidavits. Though a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 4 as well as respondent nos.5 and 6 have been filed, however, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 despite the fact that the petitioner has sought direction upon the said respondent to initiate a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the report as contained in memo no.1917 dated 25^th June, 2019.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.1 to 4 as also considering the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without commenting on the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh application before the respondent no.3 on the present issue. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no.3 after calling for a report from the concerned police station shall take appropriate measure in terms with the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C.

¶20

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

Sanjay/

Vinita Siddharth v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita Siddharth v. the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

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

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through Pranav Parimal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Ms Magadh Micro Towers and Transmission Private Limited through One of the Director Pranav Parimal Vs the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through Its Managing Director

Rahim Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Arshad Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Parvej Khan Alias Jyoti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Binay Kumar through Its Proprietor Shri Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand