Disposed

M/S Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Sri Surendra Kumar Jindal v. Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2023WPC/669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notices to vacate commercial premises and seal establishments issued by Dhanbad Municipal Corporation. Court directed respondent to initiate proceedings with due opportunity of hearing before taking coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Respondent given liberty to initiate proceedings after providing opportunity of hearing; no coercive action to be taken till then.

M/S Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through One… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No.669 of 2023

¶3

¶4

M/s. Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, Lubi Circular Road, Dhanbad.

¶8

Town Planner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad.

¶9

.......... Respondents.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

----For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, A.C. to Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, Advocate -----

¶13

Order No.03 Date: 01.03.2023

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 2^nd February, 2023 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad- respondent no.1, whereby the lessees under the petitioner have been asked to vacate the premises under their occupation within a period of seven days failing which necessary action shall be taken under the provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 for sealing their establishments. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondent no.1 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner and/or its lessees (noticees).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the developer of the building known as “City Centre, Dhanbad”. For construction of the said multi-storeyed commercial-cum-residential complex, M/s. Shree Hari Construction Company, M/s. Aditya Multicom Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rani Sati Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. entered into a development agreement with the petitioner-M/s Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. on 27^th September, 2003 and 28^th September, 2003. Mineral Area Development Authority, Dhanbad sanctioned the building plan on 21^st April, 2004, which was communicated to the petitioner on 25^th

¶16

-2-

¶17

April, 2004. The said building was constructed as per the sanctioned plan and the fire fighting system was also installed in the commercial as well as residential complex of the said building. Despite the said fact, its lessees/tenants have been issued the impugned notices dated 2^nd February, 2023 informing them that during spot verification/ inspection, prima facie no proper fire fighting system in their establishments constructed in basement area of the said building was found. Moreover, there was no proper facility for entry and exit in the said building.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the building in question has been constructed as per the map/plan sanctioned by MADA, Dhanbad (the sanctioning authority at the relevant point of time), the allegation made in the impugned letters are factually incorrect. Moreover, it is highly arbitrary on the part of the respondent no.1 in directing the lessees of the petitioner to vacate their establishments within seven days without providing any opportunity of hearing to them.

¶19

Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, A.C. to Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instruction, submits that as per the approved building plan, the basement was to be used for parking purpose and not for construction of shops. The impugned notices dated 2^nd February, 2023 clearly suggest that no fire fighting system was found in the shops in question during spot verification.

¶20

On this, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that said submission of learned counsel for the respondents is completely

¶21

-3-

¶22

incorrect, as there are two types of basements in the said building i.e. upper basement and lower basement and as per the sanctioned building plan, the construction of shops in both the basements has been approved.

¶23

Be that as it may. Since the rival factual submissions of learned counsel for the parties are required to be properly examined by the competent authority, the respondent no.1 is given liberty to initiate an appropriate proceeding on the present issue and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/its lessees (tenants). Till the said order is passed by the respondent no.1, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner/concerned noticees in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 2^nd February, 2023.

¶24

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶25

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶26

Sanjay/

M/S Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Sri Surendra Kumar Jindal v. Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Starnet Marketing Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Sri Surendra Kumar Jindal v. Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Municipal 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

Siddik Khan Vs Bank of India through Its Zonal Head

C C L Employees Credit Cooperative Society Limited Barkakana Ramgarh through Anuj Kumar Bhushan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Registrar Cooperative Societies Jharkhand

Jaglal Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through the Deputy Commissioner

Dilip Kumar Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

Archana Kumari Vs Union of India

National Federation of Farmers Procurement Processing and Retailing Cooperatives of India Limited Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary