Jharkhand High Court
Sukhdeo Vidrohi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 October, 2015
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, P.P. Bhatt
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
------
Civil Review No. 122 of 2010
------
Sukhdeo Vidrohi son of Sri Daso Bhuiyan, Resident of Jogta, Area
No.XI, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District-Dhanbad
. ......... ............................Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Forest &
Environment, New Delhi
2.The State of Jharkhand, through, Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan,
P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District, Ranchi
3.The Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, TA Division
Building, HEC Complex, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, at Van
Bhawan, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi
5.The Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad
6.Subir Das, G.M., Sijua Area 5, BCCL, PO Sijua, P.S. Jogta, District
Dhanbad............ .................... .........................Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Jay Shanker Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : JC to ASGI
------
11/ Dated: 05th October, 2015
Per Virender Singh, C.J.:
1. Through the instant petition, the petitioner, whose public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 1419 of 2010, was dismissed by the Court vide an order dated 25.10.2010, seeks review of the said order insofar as the petitioner is held to be an encroacher and was not considered as a bonafide person to prosecute the public interest litigation.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impression gathered by the Court for dismissing the public interest litigation, filed by the petitioner, perhaps, was that he was held guilty of encroaching some government land as some part of his construction, on a particular chunk of land (government land), was already demolished. Learned counsel submits that against the said order of demolition, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Dhanbad, being Miscellaneous Case No.53 of 2010, in which it is yet to be decided on merits as to whether the land belongs to the government or to the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the observation made by this .
Court observing that the petitioner himself is an encroacher, perhaps, would stand in his way at the time of final adjudication of his appeal on merits.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we make it clear that although the result of the aforesaid public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 1419 of 2010 shall remain the same, the observation made by the Court to the effect that the petitioner is an encroacher would not be construed as an expression of opinion while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner pending before the competent court and yet to be decided on its own merits.
4. The instant review petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Anu/SI