Sanjeet Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cont. (Civil) No.449 of 2024

Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Uday Sharma, resident of Rampur Chauri, P.O. Madanganj P.S. Ghosi, District – Jehanabad, Bihar … … Petitioner

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Sri. S. Luis Amuthan, S/o not known to the petitioner, the D.I.G. – cum – Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. – Hajipur, District – Vaishali (Bihar)

¶8

Sri Anurag Meena, S/o not known to the petitioner, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶9

Sri Suresh Kumar Mishra, son of not known to the petitioner, the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Opp. Parties

¶10

With

¶11

C.M.P. No. 1041 of 2024

¶12

Union of India

¶13

Railway Protection Force through its General Manager, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. – Hajipur, District – Vaishali (Bihar)

¶14

I.G., Railway Protecting Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. – Hajipur, District – Vaishali (Bihar)

¶15

D.I.G. – cum – Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, having its office at Hajipur, P.O. & P.S. Hajipur, District – Vaishali (Bihar)

¶16

Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶17

Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection, East Central Railway, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. – Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

¶18

… … Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Uday Sharma, resident of Rampur Charui, Modanganj, P.O. _ Modanganj P.S. Ghosi, District – Jehanbad, Bihar, presently posted at Nimiaghat, presently residing at R.P.F. Post, Gomoh, P.O. – Gomoh, P.S. – Hariharpur, District - Dhanbad … … Opp. Party

¶21

¶22

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶23

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC

¶25

¶26

03 /17.01.2025 C.M.P. No.1041 of 2024

¶27

The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶28

2. This petition has been filed seeking modification of order dated 14.03.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2023 to the extent it relates to the direction regarding furnishing of documents.

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners (Union of India) has submitted that on account of the counter affidavit filed in this case, the petitioners are now ready to furnish the documents, and therefore, there is no need for modification of the order and they undertake to furnish the documents as per the direction passed by this Court, and accordingly, he does not want to press CMP No.1041 of 2024.

¶30

4. Considering the submissions, CMP No.1041 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed.

¶31

5. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶32

2

¶33

Contempt (Civil) No.449 of 2024

¶34

6. This petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2023.

¶35

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the point of jurisdiction which was directed to be decided has not been decided in the order passed pursuant to the order passed by this court and further the documents which were directed to be furnished to the petitioner were also not furnished. He submits that since the CMP No.1041 of 2024 seeking modification of the order of this Court regarding furnishing of documents has been withdrawn and admittedly the point of jurisdiction has not been decided. The order passed by the authority pursuant to the direction passed in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2023 dated 14.03.2024 cannot be said to have been passed in compliance of the order passed by this court. He submits that apparently the order passed is in violation of the order passed by this Court.

¶36

8. The learned ASGI appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that the respondents have already issued notice to the petitioner on the point of territorial jurisdiction and in view of the withdrawal CMP 1041 of 2024, the documents will also be furnished. The learned counsel submits that a fresh show cause is to be issued to the petitioner accompanied with the documents which were directed to be furnished by the writ order of this Court. He submits that the point of jurisdiction as well as the other points will be decided afresh and it would be sufficient to observe that the order (Annexure – 3) which has been passed and has been annexed along with the contempt petition, that is Mandal Adesh Sankhya 55 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 will be withdrawn and fresh order will be passed.

¶37

9. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is required to be reinstated as the order of termination which has been annexed along with the contempt petition, annexure -3 , does not exist in view of the submission of the opposite parties and therefore the necessary consequence may follow.

¶38

3

¶39

10. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that it stands admitted by the side of the opposite parties that the point of jurisdiction has not been decided vide Annexure – 3 and further the documents were also not furnished to the petitioner. The opposite parties have themselves undertaken to issue a fresh show cause and then follow the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3734 of 2023.

¶40

11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this contempt proceedings. However, the opposite parties are directed to do the needful and as per their undertaking withdraw the order as contained in annexure-3 immediately so that fresh order be passed and it is directed that the timeline as mentioned in the order dated 14.03.2024 in the writ petition with respect to furnishing of documents etc. will commence after one week from today.

¶41

12. This contempt proceeding is accordingly dropped.

¶42

13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶43

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶44

Saurav/-

¶45

4

Sanjeet Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeet Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bandru Mahato Vs Hublal Mahato And Anr.

Sudip Banerjee Vs Pradip Kr Mullick

Nutan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Transport

Prakash Chandra Adhikari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Smt Kanta Jain

Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Tourism Arts Cultur, Sports and Youth Affairs