Disposed

Ms Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd. through One of Its Directors Sri Anuj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2024Cont.(Cvl)/235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging willful non-compliance of a 11.01.2017 writ order by the Secretary, Mines and Geology. The State showed the petitioner's claim was considered and rejected via letter no. 2059 dated 29.09.2022. Contempt proceeding against opposite party no. 2 was dropped; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding against O.P. no. 2 dropped; petitioner left at liberty to pursue legal recourse against letter no. 2059 dated 29.09.2022.

Ms Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd. through One… — Mining and Natural Resources | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 235 of 2021

¶4

---

¶5

M/s Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd, Kolkata, West Bengal, through one of its Directors, namely Sri Anuj Kumar

¶6

… … Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Sri K. Srinivasan, Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶10

…. … Opp. Parties

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Sagar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G.

¶13

Order No. 07

¶14

Dated: 22.01.2024

¶15

The present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no. 2 alleging willful violation of order dated 11.01.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 38 of 2017.

¶16

2. Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, refers to letter no. 2059 dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-D to the show cause affidavit dated 29.03.2023) issued by the Director, Mines, Jharkhand, Ranchi to the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner and submits that pursuant to order dated 11.01.2017 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and the same has been rejected. Thus, the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied.

¶17

3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim for grant of lease for the concerned minerals has illegally been rejected by the aforesaid order.

¶18

¶19

4. Be that as it may. Since in compliance of aforesaid order of this Court, the decision has already been taken by the concerned authority as contained in letter no. 2059 dated 29.09.2022, there is no need to further proceed in the present contempt matter.

¶20

5. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no. 2 is hereby dropped.

¶21

6. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate

¶23

recourse as permissible under law against the letter no. 2059 dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Director, Mines, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶24

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶25

Ritesh/

Ms Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd. through One of Its Directors Sri Anuj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd. through One of Its Directors Sri Anuj Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Additional Director General of Police

Ganesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shyamali Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Equbal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhuneshwar Gope Vs State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Education

Rama Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand