Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 510 (JHR)

Sobrati Miyan v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-02-20

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - All the writ petitions since involve the same questions, as such the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The prayer has been made in these writ petitions for issuance of a direction upon the State respondents to ensure establishment of power plant/industry in Tokisood area by respondent No.5 in terms of memorandum of undertaking dated 12.01.2007. 3. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the State Respondent that three writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.355 of 2018, 367 of 2018 and 393 of 2018 have been dismissed vide order dated 19th February, 2019 wherein counter affidavit has been filed, therefore, the writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the said order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the pleadings made in the writ petitions as also the counter affidavit, it is evident that the petitioners have sought for a direction seeking writ in the nature of command for direction upon the State-respondent to give effect to the memorandum of undertaking dated 12.01.2007. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that on the basis of the said undertaking, they have transferred their lands in the legitimate expectation that the overall development of the entire area will be done and they will get their opportunity for employment and other developments but very surprisingly the State-respondent has backed out from the terms and conditions of the memorandum of undertaking, therefore, the writ petitions have been filed. 6. 6. The stand taken by the State-respondent in the counter affidavit wherein the assertion made by the petitioners has not been disputed so far as it relates to entering into the memorandum of undertaking but the question herein is that the relief sought for by the petitioners is for enforcement of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of undertaking by seeking a commandment by issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that since the matter pertains to enforcement of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of undertaking, therefore, exercising power by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the terms and conditions of the memorandum of undertaking would not be proper for the reason that the writ in the nature of commandment can only be issued if there is any legal vested right of the petitioner but enforcement of the terms and conditions of the contract cannot be said to be the legal vested right. 7. Since this Court has already dismissed three writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.355 of 2018, 367 of 2018 and 393 of 2018 on 19th February, 2019, in view thereof, all these writ petitions also stands dismissed. 8. However, it is up to the petitioners to search out the alternative remedy for redressal of the grievance, if they so wish. 9. The writ petitions where the defect(s) has/have been pointed out by the Office, the same have been ignored.