Jharkhand High Court
Robart Prabhat Minz vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
( 2026:JHHC:10835-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 3936 of 2025
Robart Prabhat Minz, son of Late Mathias Minz, aged about 77 years, Resident of
27 Nayatoli Lane, Old H.B. Road, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Lower Bazar, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Project Bhavan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority & Backward Class
Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Near Kutchery,
P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Governor of Jharkhand, through the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Governor,
Raj Bhawan, P.O.-G.P.O Ranchi, P.S.- Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of
India, 416, 4th Floor, B-Wing, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan,
P.O.- Shastri Bhawan Sub-Office, P.S.- Sansad Marg, District - Central
Delhi, New Delhi.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : In Person
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
For the Resp. No. 4 : Mrs (Dr) Vandana Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos 5 & 6 : Mr Prashant Pallav, ASGI
-----
08 /Dated: 16.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Robert Prabhat Minz, the petitioner who appears in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has sought for the following substantive reliefs by instituting this petition:-
(i) Declare that the constitution and continuance of municipalities in Scheduled Areas of Jharkhand is unconstitutional and void, being in violation of Article 243ZC(1), PESA 1996 and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Jharkhand to:1
( 2026:JHHC:10835-DB )
(a) Immediately dissolve such municipalities functioning in Scheduled Areas;
(b) Restore governance in these areas through traditional self-
governance systems, strictly in conformity with section 4(a) of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA 1996);
(c) Amend the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act 2001 so that it complies fully with section 4 of the PESA 1996 and Article 243ZC of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Direct the Union of India and the Governor of Jharkhand to ensure that the provisions of the Fifth Schedule and PESA 1996 are implemented in letter and spirit in all Scheduled Areas of the State;
3. Insofar as prayer clause (i) is concerned, it is pointed out that this issue stands settled by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Debashish Soren Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, (2007 SCC OnLine Jhdar 645).
4. Upon perusing the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, we are satisfied that this issue stands settled against the contention now sought to be raised by the petitioner in this petition.
5. Further, we note that this issue has also been settled in the decision of Sonu Pascal Ekka Vs. The Governor, through its Principal Secretary & Ors., in W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2021 and connected matter, decided on 31.03.2022, by one of us (Rajesh Shankar, J.). This decision was reversed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 143 of 2022. However, the Division Bench's decision was, in turn, reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14734 of 2025, thereby restoring the learned Single Judge's decision in W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2021.
6. Accordingly, by following the reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench, we decline the relief in terms of prayer clause (i). 2
( 2026:JHHC:10835-DB )
7. Mr Minz submits that his second grievance is non-implementation of the provisions of Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA). In prayer clauses (ii) and (iii), the petitioner has prayed for some directions for the implementation of the provisions of PESA. There is also a prayer seeking a writ of mandamus to amend the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act 2001, so that it complies with the provisions of Section 4 of the PESA, 1996, and Article 243ZC of the Constitution.
8. Ordinarily, no writ of mandamus is issued for amending any State or Central Legislation. Be that as it may, by clarifying that the petitioner will not be once again entitled to seek the relief of dissolution of Municipalities or Panchayats under the garb of seeking implementation of the provisions of the PESA, we grant the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition for implementation of the provisions of PESA, since according to the petitioner, such provisions are not being implemented.
9. We further clarify that we have neither accepted nor rejected the petitioner's contention regarding the implementation of PESA in the State of Jharkhand.
10. All contentions in this regard are kept open in case any petition is filed by the petitioner herein or any other aggrieved person seeking such relief.
11. This petition is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs.
12. IAs, if pending, will not survive and are also disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 16, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr.
NAFR / Uploaded on 17.4.2026 3