Gati Kisto Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahto, Advocate : Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate : Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Priyadarshi, SC-VI : Mr. Ankit Kumar, AC to SC-VI

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to quash and set aside :-

¶16

(i) The order dated 22.08.2006, passed by the SDO, Chas in Memo No. 10;

¶17

(ii) The order dated 17.09.2010, passed by the Deputy

¶18

Commissioner, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Case No. 132 of 2010;

¶19

W.P. (C) No.3634 of 2016

¶20

1

¶21

(iii) The order dated 09.03.2016, passed in Miscellaneous Revision Petition No. 42 of 2011, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh; and

¶22

(iv) To restore the PDS License No. 09/1989 of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the SDO, Chas in Memo No. 10 dated 22.08.2006 cancelled the PDS License No. 9 of 1989 issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal vide Misc Case No. 132 of 2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 17.09.2010 dismissed the appeal. Instead of filing the revision, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 6112 of 2010 which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file Revision before the Revisional Authority along with a petition for condonation of delay, within three weeks and expected that the revision will be disposed of on merits of the case ignoring the delay in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, as early as possible and preferably within 30 days from the date of filing of such revision. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division vide order dated 09.03.2016 observed that the Coordinate Bench in W.P(C) No. 6112 of 2010 vide order dated 31.01.2011 has disposed of the revision by observing that this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to re-hear the appeal again and directed the writ petitioner to file a case again in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.

¶23

W.P. (C) No.3634 of 2016

¶24

2

¶25

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division has not specifically set aside the earlier order dated 17.09.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 132 of 2010 and instead has directed the petitioner to file a fresh case which is not in accordance with law.

¶26

The learned counsel for the State submits that though it has not been expressly mentioned by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division that the order dated 17.09.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Misc Case No. 132 of 2010 has been set aside but the implication of the order dated 09.03.2016, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division is that the same has been set aside the appeal is to be heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro on merit after condoning the delay, in view of the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.01.2011 in W.P(C) No. 6112 of 2010.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and submissions made at the Bar, the order dated 09.03.2016, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division in Misc. Revision Case No. 42 of 2011 is modified by setting aside the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 132 of 2010 and the Misc. Case No. 132 of 2010 is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro to consider the same on merits after condoning the delay in filing the said Misc. Case No. 132 of 2010.

¶28

W.P. (C) No.3634 of 2016

¶29

3

¶30

Keeping in view that the delay has already occurred, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro is directed to consider the same expeditiously, preferably, within four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this Order.

¶31

This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

¶32

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶33

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2^nd April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶34

W.P. (C) No.3634 of 2016

¶35

4

Gati Kisto Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gati Kisto Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kuldeep Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoranjan Kumar Alias Manoranjan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yakub Hassa Purti And Ors. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Srinarayan Vigyan Prabhakar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Subhendu Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Secondary Education