Dismissed

Bishnupada Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Jun 2024WPC/1623/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash an election of a Village Headman and continue his own tenure as Village Headman under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed after the petitioner's counsel failed to press the case due to the petitioner's alleged death and inability to be contacted.

What did the court decide?

Null. The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.

Bishnupada Singh Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 1623 of 2020

¶3

Bishnu Pada Singh … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶7

The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Ichagarh, District- SeraikellaKharsawan

¶9

The Circle Officer, Ichagarh, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan

¶10

Hathi Pada Puran

¶11

…. … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 : A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II For the Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate

¶13

Order No. 09 Dated: 18.06.2024

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no. 657 dated 05.09.2019 issued by the Circle Officer, Ichagarh (the respondent no. 5) whereby direction has been issued to conduct election of Village Headman of Village-Rugdi and also to quash the election of the respondent no. 6 on the said post by Village General Assembly in its meeting dated 20.09.2019 (Anneuxre-8 to the writ petition). Further prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus to the concerned respondents to let the petitioner continue as Village Headman of VillageRugdi who was duly appointed in the year 2009 itself in accordance with the provisions of Section 74A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and has been functioning since then.

¶15

2. Reference may be made to order dated 11.06.2024

¶16

which reads as under:

¶17

“1. Mr. Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that the petitioner-Bishnu Pada Singh has died during pendency of the writ petition.

¶18

2. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

¶19

¶20

petitioner prays for a short adjournment to ascertain the said fact.

¶21

3. Considering the said prayer, put up this case under the heading “For Orders” on 18^th June, 2024.”

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

¶23

not been able to contact the petitioner and hence he is not in a

¶24

position to press the present writ petition.

¶25

4. Considering the said submission, the writ petition is

¶26

dismissed as not pressed.

¶27

Ritesh/

¶28

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶29

Bishnupada Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnupada Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Tetri Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Panchu Bairaik and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Muniya Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Mahto Alias Krishana Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand