Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 471 (JHR)

Basant Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2015-04-15

D.N.PATEL, PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J : 1. This writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that though the Sub-Divisional Officer (Deputy Collector) has no power, jurisdiction and authority to decide the matters under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, but, the said officer is (unnecessarily and illegally) conducting the matter of eviction of this petitioner from the premises, which is narrated in the memo of the writ petition, which is denied by respondent no.5 and, therefore, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the vires of several Sections of the Act, 2011. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that if the respondents are agreeing that the very Act of the year 2011 has not been brought into force and if these facts are admitted, then let this matter be brought to an end by quashing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi who is also Rent Controller cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi instead of going into the fine nicety of power and jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand to enact such type of the Act, 2011 which is in the teeth of Article 323 (B)(2) of the Constitution of India to be read with the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 11 SCC 1 and also the decision reported in (2014) 10 SCC 1. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the State-Additional Advocate General submitted that the notification required to be published under Section 1(3) of the Act, 2011 has not been published by the State of Jharkhand and, hence, the Act, 2011 has not been brought into force. 3. In view of this limited submissions made by the Additional Advocate General, it appears that the delegation of power to the Officer under Section 31, has got no value in the eye of law, because the Act has not been brought into force. 4. Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 has not been brought into force because the State of Jharkhand has not issued necessary notification under Section 1 thereof. 4. Having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 has not been brought into force because the State of Jharkhand has not issued necessary notification under Section 1 thereof. In view of this submissions by the Additional Advocate General of the State, the power delegated to Sub-Divisional Officer can not exercise his power under the Act, 2011 much less under Section 19 thereof. In view of the aforesaid facts, we hereby quash and set aside the proceeding before Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) Ranchi, who is also a Rent Controller under the Act, 2011 in connection with J.B.C. Case No.57 of 2013. We also direct the Sub-Divisional Officers of the State of Jharkhand not to exercise their powers under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, because this Act has not been brought into force within the State of Jharkhand, as the necessary notification has not been issued under Section 1 of the Act, 2011. 5. Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to send photo copy of this order to all the Deputy Commissioner of the State of Jharkhand who will percolate this order to his subordinate officer in vertical hierarchy. 6. This writ petition (civil) is hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent without entering into the provisions of the Act, 2011. This change is left open to the petitioner and if need arises, the petitioner can challenge the vires of the Act, 2011.