Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 7 December, 2011
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.863 of 2011
Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Limited. ....... Petitioner.
Versus
Adityapur Industrial Area
Development Authority & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioner : M/s. Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Indrajit
Sinha and Abhijit Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents: M/s. Binod Kanth, V. P. Singh and
P. K. Prasad, Sr. Advocates.
I.A. No.2566 of 2011:
07/07.12.2011: In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for addition of certain facts and also intended to bring some document on record, which were not earlier incorporated in the writ petition.
It has been submitted that the amendment prayed for does not go to change the nature and character of the writ petitioner and that the statements required to be brought on record in order to add facts, which are already on record.
Mr. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, opposed this application.
Mr. Binod Kanth, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the intervener respondentBMW Industries Limited, also opposed the said prayer. It has been submitted that the statements, which are sought to be added, would go to change the nature of the writ petition.
I have hard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts on record.
In this application, the petitioner has sought to bring on record certain additional facts and some documents, which were not incorporated in the writ petition.
I am of the view that the petitioner has sought to bring on record some additional facts in continuation of the writ petition. No separate prayer has been made on the basis of the said additional facts and that it would not go to change the nature/ character of the writ petition.
2 Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. Amendment, as prayed for, also stands allowed.
I.A. No.2566 of 2011 is disposed of.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) I.A. No.673 of 2011:
In this interlocutory application, the applicant has prayed for its addition as respondent in this writ petition.
It has been submitted that the writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28th January, 2011 (Annexure13). The applicant has also filed a separate writ petition challenging the said order and as such, their presence in the writ petition is necessary for the purpose of complete adjudication of the controversies between the parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposed the said prayer and submitted that since the applicant has filed a separate writ petition, their addition as respondent is not required in the instant writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts on record. It is an admitted fact that the order, which has been challenged by the petitioner, has been also assailed by the applicant in a separate writ petition. In order to appreciate all the controversies between the parties, in my view, the presence of the applicant is desirable.
Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant is added as respondent.
I.A. No.673 of 2011 is disposed of.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) W.P.(C) No.863 of 2011:
This writ petition shall be heard. Since the respondents have appeared, no notice need be issued.
3 The parties are at liberty to file their counter affidavit. Liberty is also given to the parties to pray for fixing an early date of hearing.
Interim order dated 16th March, 2011 shall continue.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1492 of 2011 Anjania Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. .......... Petitioner.
Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate. For the Respondents: J.C. to A.G., M/s. P. K. Prasad & C. A. Bardhan, Sr. Advocates. 10/07.12.2011: This writ petition shall be heard along with W.P.(C) no.863 of 2011.
Since the respondents have appeared, no notice need be issued.
The parties are at liberty to file their counter affidavit. Liberty is also given to the parties to pray for fixing an early date of hearing.
Interim order dated 10th March, 2011 shall continue.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1249 of 2011 BMW Industries Limited. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate. For the Respondents: J.C. to A.G., M/s. P. K. Prasad & C. A. Bardhan, Sr. Advocates. 09/07.12.2011: This writ petition shall be heard along with W.P.(C) no.863 of 2011.
Since the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, no notice need be issued.
Liberty is given to the parties to pray for fixing an early date of hearing.
Interim order dated 10th March, 2011 shall continue.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.894 of 2011 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. ....... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Advocate. For the Respondents: J.C. to A.G. M/s. V. P. Singh & C. A. Bardhan, Sr. Advocates. I.A. No.674 of 2011:
10/07.12.2011: In this interlocutory application, the applicant has prayed for its addition as respondent in this writ petition.
It has been submitted that the writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28th January, 2011 (Annexure14). The applicant has also filed a separate writ petition challenging the said order and as such, their presence in the writ petition is necessary for the purpose of complete adjudication of the controversies between the parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposed the said prayer and submitted that since the applicant has filed a separate writ petition, their addition as respondent is not required in the instant writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts on record. It is an admitted fact that the order, which has been challenged by the petitioner, has been also assailed by the applicant in a separate writ petition. In order to appreciate all the controversies between the parties, in my view, the presence of the applicant is desirable.
Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant is added as respondent.
I.A. No.674 of 2011 is disposed of.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) W.P.(C) no.894 of 2011:
This writ petition shall be heard along with W.P.(C) no.863 of 2011.
2 Since the respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, no notice need be issued.
Liberty is given to the parties to pray for fixing an early date of hearing.
Interim order dated 16th March, 2011 shall continue.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3404 of 2011 Kishor Kumar Das. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to G.A.
I.A. No.2333 of 2011:
07/07.12.2011: In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner
does not press this interlocutory application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2333 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3409 of 2011 Guddu Ghatwar. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to G.A.
I.A. No.2410 of 2011:
07/07.12.2011: Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this
interlocutory application in order to file another appropriate application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2410 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3414 of 2011 Chhotu Singh. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to G.P.II
I.A. No.2331 of 2011:
07/07.12.2011: In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner
does not press this interlocutory application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2331 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3068 of 2011 Durga Charan Mahto. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to G.A.
I.A. No.2336 of 2011:
05/07.12.2011: In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner
does not press this interlocutory application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2336 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3069 of 2011 Bhagirath Mahto. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to G.A.
I.A. No.2335 of 2011:
05/07.12.2011: In view of the subsequent development, the petitioner
does not press this interlocutory application.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2335 of 2011 is rejected as not pressed.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3028 of 2008 Ranchi Construction Company & Ors. .......... Petitioners.
Versus Shailendra Kumar. .......... Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioners : Mr. M. K. Laik, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate.
07/07.12.2011: This writ petition shall be heard.
Since the respondent has appeared, no notice need be issued.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.2927 of 2008 Jetha Sahu. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the State : J.C. to S.C. (L&C) 14/07.12.2011: This writ petition shall be heard.
Since the state respondents have appeared, no notice need be issued on them.
Issue notice to Respondent No.7 under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed in Court within a week, failing which this writ petition, as against the concerned respondent, shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) I. A. No.1912 of 2011:
In view of the order dated 7th December, 2011 passed in the writ petition, this interlocutory application has become infructuous.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1912 of 2011 is rejected being infructuous.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1987 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Singh. .......... Petitioner.
Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Dr. Jay Prakash, Sr. Advocate.
For the State : J.C. to A.G.
05/07.12.2011: The grievance of the petitioner is that his bodyguard
deployed by the concerned authority was not competent and his duty was not satisfactory. The same was also found by the Deputy Commissioner and recommendation was made for consideration of giving another bodyguard, as prayed for by the petitioner, but till date no decision has been taken by the concerned authority.
Learned J.C. to A.G., appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that if any such request is still pending before the concerned authority, the same shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed.
Considering the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad Respondent No.2 and Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad Respondent No.3, who are said to be the competent authorities in the matter, to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.3704 of 2007 Most. Astuba. .......... Petitioner.
Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Shivnath, Advocate. For the State : J.C. to S.C. (L & C) 03/07.12.2011: This writ petition shall be heard.
Since the State respondents have appeared, no notice need be issued on them.
Issue notice to Respondent Nos.6 and 7 under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed in Court within a week, failing which this writ petition, as against the concerned respondents, shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Sanjay/