JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SHIVA STONE CHIPS V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Sept. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 5:

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 28(Mu)/Legal, Hazaribagh dated 21.10.2018 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Case No. 08/2018 (Annexure-11), whereby earlier decision contained in Memo No. 734 dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure-6) wherein decision was taken for pre-mature termination of Lease Deed of the Petitioner pertaining to Stone Chips, situated over Mouza Tepsa, P.S. Ichak, Thana No. 39, Khata No. 29, Plot No. 117, (part), having an Area 21.00 acre, has been re-confirmed.

(ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction, particularly a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the letter/order contained in Memo No. 734 dated 27.04.2016 (as contained in Annexure-5), whereby the Petitioner has been communicated the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh regarding premature termination of Lease Deed of the Petitioner pertaining to stone chips, situated over Mouza Teps, P.S. Ichak, Thana No. 39, Khata No. 29, Plot No. 117(part) having an area of 21 acres, on the alleged ground that the lease area of the Petitioner falls within the Protected Forest Area, as protected vide Notification No. C/P.F.-1016/52-19R dated 02.01.1953.

(iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Notification bearing No. C/P.F.-1016/52-19R dated 02.01.1953 has lost its force and is ineffective after expiry of the period of thirty years.

2. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, the learned State counsel at the outset has raised an issue on maintainability of this writ petition by stating that the present writ petition has lost its force due to lapse of period of lease in question.

3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid fact.

4. Considering the same, this Court is of the view that this writ petition has become infructuous with efflux of time and, as such, it is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

5. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.