Dismissed¶25

Rahul Raja v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Aug 2025WPC/472/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; W.P.(C) No.472 of 2020; decided 01-08-2025 by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary. Article 226 writ by seven Patratu (Dist. Ramgarh) residents against State of Jharkhand, NTPC Ltd. and Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. concerning routing of a high voltage wire; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek compensation from the State Government. Keywords: high voltage transmission line, alternative route, withdrawal of writ petition, compensation, Patratu, Ramgarh.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition granted, with liberty to approach the State Government with an appropriate application for payment of compensation in accordance with law; no substantive adjudication on the route/alignment issue. ¶25

Rahul Raja Vs State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

[ 2025:JHHC:21413 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.472 of 2020

¶3

Rahul Raja Age about 33 Years S/o Sri Baleshwar Sahu Resident of Vill Jai Nagar Road Patratu, P.O. P.S. Patratu Dist Ramgarh

¶4

Raju Ram Age about 44 Years S/o Jagdev Ram.

¶5

Chhotan Ram Age about 60 years S/o Late Luttu Ravidas @ Daso Ram

¶6

Sukhadev Ram age about 57 years S/o Late Ramdev Ram

¶7

Fulendar Saw Age about 39 Years S/o Late Lakhan Saw

¶8

Ashish Kumar Nayak Age about 45 Years S/o Late Dwarika Nayak

¶9

Arun Kumar Ram Age about 45 Years S/o Sri Moti Ram Petitioner No. 2 to 7 are resident of village Sankul P.O. P.S. Patratu Dist Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Jharkhand through the D.C. Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Dist- Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶13

National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. through Additional General Manager at Patratu, P.O. & P.S.- Patratu, Dist:- Ramgarh

¶14

Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. Through Chief Engineer (Transmission), Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

------

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶18

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP III

¶19

------

¶20

Order No:-06 Dated:-01-08-2025

¶21

Heard the parties.

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent No.3 to stay the work and alter the route of high voltage wire as there is an alternative route of the said high voltage wire to pass through.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the work of high voltage wire has already been completed and the line has been charged, so, the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to approach the State Government with appropriate application for payment of compensation in accordance with law.

¶24

Permission is accorded.

¶25

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdraw with the aforesaid liberty.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

Saroj/

Rahul Raja v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Raja v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Prasad Rajak Vs Commissioner,Santhal Pargana

Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway Vs Khagen Gope

Tulsi Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Gulam Rabbani Vs Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Council through Its Examination Controller

Balai Babu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahabir Swarnkar Vs Prabha Devi