Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Opp. ... on 14 January, 2019

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P(S) No. 6347 of 2018
       Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors.                           .... .... Petitioner(s).
                                   Versus
      State of Jharkhand & Ors.                                .... .... Opp. Party(s)
                                   ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

------

03/14.01.2019 I.A. No. 11387 of 2018 Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the interlocutory application bearing I.A. 11387 of 2018 in view of filing I.A. No. 147 of 2019.

Permission is accorded.

Accordingly, interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.11387 of 2018 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 147 of 2019 By filing the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 147 of 2019 petitioners have prayed for amending the writ application to challenge the Memo No. 1188 dated 27.12.2018, Memo No. 2587 dated 19.12.2018, Memo No. 623 dated 20.12.2018 and Memo No.3259 dated 17.12.2018 passed by Under Secretary, Transport Department, Ranchi, District Transport Officer, Palamu, District Transport Officer, West Singbhum, Chaibasa and District Transport Officer, Bokaro respectively, by which contractual services of all the petitioners have been terminated.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the main writ application petitioners have prayed for regularization and only after filing this writ application their services have been terminated. He submits that for appropriate adjudication of this case and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceeding, it is necessary to amend the writ application. He further submits that aforesaid orders are consequent upon the decision which is impugned in the main writ application.

Counsel for the State has no objection if the Interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.147 of 2019 is allowed and the writ application is allowed to be amended.

Considering the submission of the petitioner and after going through the record, I find much force in his submission. If interlocutory application is not allowed it will amount to multiplicity of proceeding and further writ application also cannot be decided properly. Thus interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 147 of 2019 stands allowed.

Counsel for the petitioner is directed to make necessary amendment by incorporating the same in the writ application and a fresh amended writ application should be filed within a period of one week.

Counsel for the respondents-State is directed to file reply to the amended writ application within a period of four weeks thereafter.

List this case after five weeks.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/ C.P 2