Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1466 (JHR)

J. R. Rakshit v. H. E. C. Ranchi

2012-09-24

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER I. A. No. 2881 of 2012 1. The writ petitioner has preferred this interlocutory application to incorporate certain amendment in the original writ petition, which are made in the paragraph-8 of present interlocutory application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed in the year 2005 for quashing the order of rejection dated 29.10.2005 whereby his application for allotment of quarter on leave and license basis was rejected. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, a revised scheme vide order dated 06th April, 2006, contained at Annexure-14 to the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, has been issued by the respondents whereby interested employee/ ex-employee were given option to opt for allotment of quarter on long term lease basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the original order dated 29.10.2005 has been passed on alleged ground that his son had been implicated in a criminal case. Subsequently his son has already been acquitted from the said charge, which has already been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. 3. In view of the subsequent development and the issuance of the circular dated 06.04.2006, the petitioner, therefore, seeks to incorporate the prayer made in para-11 of the Interlocutory Application in the nature that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner's case for allotment for E-Type Quarter on long term lease basis at par with the others persons. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that circular for inviting application for long term lease basis has been introduced in April, 2006 during the pendency of this writ petition. 5. In the circumstances, since the main writ petition was in respect of the claim of the petitioner for allotment of E-Type Quarter, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if this petitioner is allowed to incorporate the prayer made in the para-11 of the Interlocutory Application in the main writ petition, which will also avoid multiplicity of the proceeding. 6. In the circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendment in the main writ petition, which should be carried out within the course of the day, in red ink. 7. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. W. P. (C) No. 6573 of 2005 8. 6. In the circumstances, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendment in the main writ petition, which should be carried out within the course of the day, in red ink. 7. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. W. P. (C) No. 6573 of 2005 8. Counsel for the respondents seeks time to file their reply to the newly added prayer in the main writ petition. 9. List this case in the week commencing 08th of October, 2012.