Disposed

Rajesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jun 2024WPC/458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of contractor registrations. The court dismissed the petition as there was no cause for further proceedings after the respondents intervenedial affidavit confirmed that all petitioners had received registration certificates under new rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and I.A. No.4121 of 2021 were disposed of as no cause for further proceedings existed.

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.458 of 2021 With

¶2

I.A. No.4121 of 2021

¶3

¶4

Rajesh Kumar

¶5

M/s. Ashish Construction through its Proprietor Shiv Dayal Gope

¶6

Ramesh Kumar Keshari

¶7

Dhankuwar Sahu

¶8

Durga Sahu

¶9

Ganesh Prasad Keshari

¶10

Laxman Prasad

¶11

Narendra Prasad

¶12

Dipak Kumar Gupta

¶13

10.M/s. Subham Construction through its Proprietor Santosh Kumar Gupta

¶14

11.Dipak Kumar Bipallavi

¶15

12.Pankaj Kumar 13.Shyam Bihari Yadav 14.Triloki Choudhary 15.Mukesh Prasad Sahu 16.Devendra Kherwar .......... Petitioners. -Versus-

¶16

The State of Jharkhand

¶17

The Secretary, Rural Development Department (Panchayat Raj), Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

¶18

The Director, Panchayat Raj Directora, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶19

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla.

¶20

The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Jila Parishad, Gumla.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶24

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, A.C. to G.P.II ----- Order No.15 Date: 20.06.2024

¶25

¶26

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the minutes of the meeting dated 16^th October, 2020 issued by the Secretary, Jila Parishad, Gumla vide memo no.277 dated 12^th November, 2020, so far it relates to the petitioners, whereby the registration of the contractors of Jila Parishad have been cancelled with immediate effect.

¶27

The writ petition was earlier taken on 10^th June, 2024 and on the said date, following was passed:-

¶28

“Reference may be made to order dated 16.04.2024 which reads as under:

¶29

“It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/ State that out of sixteen writ petitioners, ten have applied for registration under the new Rules and the same has been granted also. If rest of the petitioners apply for registration, then their case will also be considered under the new Rules.

¶30

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that rest of the petitioners will make application before the appropriate authority within one week from today.

¶31

3. As prayed for, put up this case on 10.06.2024.

¶32

4. The authorities are directed to consider the fact that the fees have already been deposited under the old Rules.”

¶33

2. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that subsequent to the aforesaid order, rest of the petitioners have also made applications before Zila Parishad, Gumla for their registration as contractors, however they have not yet been informed about the registration by Zila Parishad, Gumla.

¶34

3. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that since Model Code of Conduct was in operation in view of the parliamentary elections, the decision could not be taken pursuant to the applications submitted by rest of the petitioners. However, if the case is adjourned for a week, an appropriate decision on their applications will be taken in the meantime.

¶35

4. Considering the said submission of learned G.P.-II, put up this case under the heading for “Orders” on 20.06.2024.

¶36

5. The respondent- Zila Parishad, Gumla shall file a counter affidavit disclosing the details of the certificates of registration issued to the rest of the petitioners.”

¶37

Pursuant to the said order, a supplementary counter affidavit

¶38

has been filed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Gumla.

¶39

Learned A.C. to G.P.II appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the said supplementary counter affidavit, which read as under:-

¶40

-2-

¶41

“5. That it is stated and submitted that in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Court, the certificates of registration issued to the petitioners is being brought on record. 6. That with reference to the above, it is stated and submitted that it is apparent that all the petitioners have been duly registered and accordingly registration certificates have been duly issued to all the petitioners under the new rules and therefore there remains no grievance to be addressed in the present writ application.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the aforesaid development as stated in the supplementary counter affidavit.

¶43

Considering that all the petitioners have now been issued registration certificates under the provisions of the new rules, there is no reason to further proceed in the matter.

¶44

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶45

I.A. No.4121 of 2021 is also disposed of.

¶46

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶47

Sanjay/

¶48

-3-

Rajesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Xavier Herenz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Kumar Bhadani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shailesh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India Represented through Its Secretary Ministry of Finance

Parash Nath Gupta Vs the Chairman Medningar Municipal Corporation

Sudhir Kumar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Paras Nath Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand