Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 11 (JHR)

Binay Ranjan v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent Board. 2. By the impugned communication at Annexure-10 dated 21.03.2015, the Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand had directed the Managing Director, Housing Board to undertake allotment of plots through a fresh draw of lots consequent to the decision of cancellation of allotment which was earlier done on 20.08.2011 by way of lottery. Petitioner has thereafter been asked by letter no. 845 dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 6 - Estate Officer to express his consent to participate in the fresh allotment of plots in question consequent to cancellation of plots allotted through lottery earlier. Petitioner has also assailed the communication at Annexure-6 dated 12.07.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, where under the Respondent No. 5 was directed to take action in respect of cancellation of allotment undertaken through lottery in the light of the opinion of the learned Advocate General. 3. The same issue had earlier engaged the attention of a Bench of this Court in WPC No. 1346/2015 (Vijay Shankar Jha & others v. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Housing Department & others) and analogous cases. By judgment dated 10.12.2015, decision of the Respondent Department dated 21.03.2015 and that of the Respondent Board taken on 07.04.2015 in its 40th meeting, were quashed being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Counsel for the Respondent Board does not dispute that the instant matter is also covered by the same judgment. It is also submitted on his behalf that after quashing of the decision of the State Government at Annexure-10 dated 21.03.2015 and the Board''s decision taken thereafter, individual allottees including the petitioner has been issued show-cause notices. Counsel for the petitioner accepts receipt of notice on the petitioner as well. 5. Having regard to the state of undisputed facts, the writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in the light of the judgment dated 10.12.2015 passed in the case of Vijay Shankar Jha (Supra) and other analogous cases. Needless to say, now it is up to the petitioner to respond to the notice issued upon him, where-after the Respondent Board is entitled to take a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in that light.