Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 695 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Panchanand Choudhary

2013-06-18

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
ORDER I.A. No. 2432 of 2013 By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay being I.A. No. 2432 of 2013. There is delay of 24 days in filing the L.P.A. 2. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the L.P.A. is condoned and LA No. 2432 of 2013 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 132 of 2013 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner/respondent, before entering into the contract, voluntarily agreed to the condition which the petitioner sought to challenge in the writ petition and in earlier round, the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 26.6.2012. However, after remand order passed by the Division Bench (by us) dated 11th September, 2012 in L.P.A. No. 282 of 2012, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 27.2.2013. 5. It is submitted that once the petitioner/respondent has taken benefit of the entire process of award of the contract by open eyes as well as by giving written consent for the condition, he has no right to challenge the condition of the contract. It is submitted that if that condition is contrary to the constitutional provision and violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India then in that situation, the entire process could have been cancelled but the mere condition could not have been cancelled. 6. We considered submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the reasons given by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2013. The learned single Judge has considered various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter reached to the conclusion that part of the condition which prohibits free trade, commerce and intercourse within the territory of India is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. So far as other conditions are concerned, the learned single Judge directed the State authorities to look into the same by ensuring reasonable balance in the use of machinery and that of manual labourer in excavation of sand so as to protect the interest of the local labourer. This finding given by the learned single Judge has not been challenged by either of the parties. 7. This finding given by the learned single Judge has not been challenged by either of the parties. 7. Be that as it may, regarding the issue which has been challenged by the appellant-State, we are of the considered opinion that learned single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. We do not find any merit in the L.P.A. Therefore, the L.P.A. is dismissed and consequently the stay petition (I.A. No. 2433 of 2013) is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.