Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 139 (JHR)

Shalkhan Murmoo v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-25

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner is a former Member of Lok Sabha. However, according to learned Advocate General, the writ petitioner was never a Member from any constituency of the State of Jharkhand and he was a Member of Lok Sabha from the State of Orissa. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner has prayed for a declaration that holding of the post of Chief Minister by Sri Arjun Munda, respondent no. 7 and of the post of Minister of Revenue and Land Reforms by Sri Mathura Mahto, respondent no. 8, is completely unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of the oath of office taken by them as prescribed in the IIIrd Schedule of the Constitution of India and further prayed for a declaration that in view of the blatant violation of the Constitution and stopping and frustrating enforcement of law, the aforesaid respondent nos.7 and 8 are not entitled to continue in the office even for a day. 3. In the writ petition, it has been stated that one order was issued on 4th December, 2010, asking the authorities to implement the provisions of Section 46(1) proviso (b) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, restricting transfer of the land belonging to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes but immediately within a period of one week, on 11th December, 2010, another order was issued suspending the order dated 4th December, 2010 and thus, they have acted in derogation of the statutory provisions of law and that too, by this they have violated the oath of office• taken by them as provided in IIIrd Schedule of the Constitution. The petitioner thereafter submitted I.A No. 561/2011 seeking permission to add yet another prayer for quashing letter no. 3752 dated 11.12.2010, Annexure-2, whereby operation of the letter dated 4th December, 2010, has been kept in abeyance. 4. The State has filed counter and submitted that in Notification dated 4th December, 2010, instead of giving reference of other backward "class", reference has been given of other backward "caste" and therefore, to avoid confusion, the said Annexure 1 dated 4th December, 2010, was withdrawn by issuing letter dated 11th December, 2010. However, it is submitted that so far as enforcement of law is concerned, law is being enforced and law is not being enforced by virtue of the orders referred above. 5. However, it is submitted that so far as enforcement of law is concerned, law is being enforced and law is not being enforced by virtue of the orders referred above. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner, who was himself a Member of Parliament, would not have stressed the issues set at (A) and (B) seeking a declaration that holding of the post of Chief Minister by Sri Arjun Munda and of Minister of Revenue and Land Reforms by Sri Mathura Mahto is completely unconstitutional, illegal and in violation of the oath of office taken by them and for seeking the relief of declaration that they are not entitled to continue on the posts. 6. From the pleadings and prayer referred above, we are further of the considered opinion that this writ petition cannot be said to be a bona fide writ petition at all. Law remain in force because they are enacted in accordance with law and are not dependent upon any direction issued by the authorities for implementation of law, nor withholding such direction or staying such direction will make the law inoperative in any manner. The Courts are very strict in implementation of land reforms laws and in protecting the interest of the downtrodden and particularly the persons who are members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe as well as the members of other backward class. Therefore, it appears that much has been said to be achieved for no issue at all and the petitioner, if would have any bona fide intention, would not have sought the relief set at (A) and (B) of the writ petition and the relief, which he sought subsequent to filing of the writ petition, would have been granted in any writ petition other than P.I.L. 7. Be that as it may, learned Advocate General submits that he has no objection, if Annexure-2 is set aside by making it clear that in the order dated 4th December, 2010, Government meant other backward "class" and not other backward "caste". 8. Even if that was not the stand of the State Government and even if the order dated 4th December, 2010, remained in force, the authorities were bound to act in accordance with law and not to follow the directions contrary to law and no harm could have been caused by any of the instructions issued. 9. 8. Even if that was not the stand of the State Government and even if the order dated 4th December, 2010, remained in force, the authorities were bound to act in accordance with law and not to follow the directions contrary to law and no harm could have been caused by any of the instructions issued. 9. However, we are making it clear for clarity of all the Officers dealing with matters under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act that they have to follow the laws in its true spirit and to protect the rights of the citizens: 10. Taking a liberal view, we dismiss this writ petition without imposing any cost, though it could have been imposed considering the status of the person of being a former Member of the Parliament.