Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 251 (JHR)

Ram Balak Vishwakarma v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-24

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT I.A. No.3001 of 2018 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for correction of father''s name of the petitioner. 2. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application, the same is allowed with a direction upon the petitioner to make necessary correction, as sought for, in the said interlocutory application. W.P. (C) No. 689 of 2018 3. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , wherein the prayer has been sought for direction upon functionaries of the State to evict the respondent no.7 from the quarter which has been allotted in favour of the petitioner while he was in service. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is father of the respondent no.7 but she illegally has occupied the quarter in consequence thereof, the post retiral benefit like that of gratuity etc. is not being disbursed in his favour and the Tata Steel Limited is charging penal rent, hence this writ petition. 5. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties has gathered that it is dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.7 and the quarter pertains to the Tata Steel Limited, therefore, the petitioner is having its liberty to approach other remedy for redressal of his grievance for the reason that the mandamus upon Tata Steel Limited can be issued in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the nature of dispute since it does not come within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no necessary direction can be passed. 6. Further the Superintendent of Police or the Officer-in-charge has got no power to evict the respondent no.7 from the possession of the said quarter without resorting to the statutory provision and if any direction would be passed by this Court upon them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for evicting the respondent no.7, it will amount to exceeding its jurisdiction since statute does not confer power upon them, therefore, High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot exercise the said power. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed. However, with the liberty to the petitioner to get other remedy for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as interlocutory application stand disposed of.