Writ petition disposed of without entertaining it on merit because the alleged unauthorized quarry operators were not arrayed as opposite parties. The bench observed that a fresh representation should be filed before the Tahasildar, Begunia, who shall consider it after a hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 16566 of 2015
02. 21.03.2017 The grievance of the petitioner is that some unauthorized pers
ons are running stone quarry.
2. With regard to such grievance, the petitioner has already filed representation
before opposite party no.3-Tahasildar, Begunia.
3. The petitioner has not arrayed the person alleged to be running the unauthoriz
ed stone quarry as an opposite party. As such, we would not be inclined to entertain this writ
petition on merit.
4. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of th
e writ petition with the observation that in case with regard to the grievance made in this wr
it petition, the petitioner files a fresh representation before the opposite party no.3-Tahasi
ldar, Begunia, the same shall be considered and decided by the Tahasildar, Begunia in accorda
nce with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of
....... ( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
..
( DR. B.R.SARANGI )
JUDGE
-2-
Petitioner
Tahasildar, Begunia
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R.SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court