Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 520 (JHR)

Rajni Jain v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-05

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for a direction to the respondent no.2 to remove the seal of the petitioner''s premises forthwith which was sealed on 02.02.2013 and for direction to the respondents for payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- due to illegal sealing. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(Cr.) No.54 of 2014 with W.P.(Cr.) No.55 of 2014 and submitted that on the basis of the statement made in the counter-affidavit, in that case, the seal of the house of those petitioners were removed. He submits that in W.P.(Cr.) No.54 of 2014 with W.P.(Cr.) No.55 of 2014 criminal cases was instituted in those matters and in the instant case, no criminal case was instituted. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that they have filed specific counter-affidavit wherein statement has been made in para-12 that the matter has been referred to Central Bureau of Investigation for inquiry and it is now pending with Central Bureau of Investigation and accordingly, submits that the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.54 of 2014 with W.P.(Cr.) No.55 of 2014 dated 24.03.2015 has no applicability to the case at hand. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner particularly in view of the facts that serious allegations have been made against this present petitioner. The matter has been referred to Central Bureau of Investigation for inquiry as has been stated in para-12 of the counter-affidavit. 6. The judgment dated 24.03.2015 passed in W.P.(Cr) No.54/2014 with W.P.(Cr) No.55/2014 has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly in view of the fact that the order in the said cases were passed on the basis of the statement made by the State government in the counter-affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any such similar stand by the respondents in the case. Moreover, the Central Bureau of Investigation who is enquiring the allegations against the petitioner is not a party in this case. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.