Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 649 (JHR)

Nawal Chandra Ghose v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-23

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 25/2018-19, which was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahgama in R.E.R. Case No. 16/2017-18. 2. Earlier, the writ petition was taken up by this Court on 18.02.2021 and on the said date, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition, had submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 had moved in the court of the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka intending to file revision, however, neither the same was numbered nor any date of hearing was given on the ground that the office of the respondent no. 2 was lying vacant. Considering the said submission, this Court had directed on the said date that a specific affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 be filed on the aforesaid aspect positively within two weeks. The order of this Court was, however, not complied till 07.04.2021 which led to imposition of cost of Rs. 3,000/- upon the respondent no. 2 and the time for filing the affidavit on the said issue was extended by further two weeks. Even thereafter, no such affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, though the cost imposed against the said respondent was deposited. On the request of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, the case was again adjourned to be taken up on 23.08.2021 i.e. today. 3. Mr. Vijyant Verma, AC to AAG-IV appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 on 19.08.2021 which, however, has not been placed on record due to subsequent Court holidays. 4. The Court is thus taking note of the online copy of the counter affidavit sent to the Court’s e-mail by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2 to 4 on 19.08.2021 which, however, has not been placed on record due to subsequent Court holidays. 4. The Court is thus taking note of the online copy of the counter affidavit sent to the Court’s e-mail by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. On perusal of the said counter affidavit, it appears that the same has been signed and sworn by Mr. Jugnu Minj, Deputy Transport Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Dumka on 16.04.2021 and filed on 19.08.2021. It has been stated inter-alia in paragraph-11(i) of the counter affidavit that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is incorrect that the court of Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka is not functioning. R.M.A. No. 04/2021 filed by the petitioner against Ashish Mazumdar (the respondent no. 5 herein) and Others is pending in the said court and the next date of hearing has been fixed on 10.05.2021. 5. Surprisingly, though the said counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 on 19.08.2021, yet the update information regarding stage of R.M.A. No. 04/2021 has not been mentioned in the same. 6. The counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, however, submits that as per his instruction, R.M.A. No. 04/2021 is listed in the Court of respondent no. 2 today itself. 7. On further perusal of the counter affidavit, the Court also finds that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have contested the writ petition on merit also. It is unfortunate that vide order dated 18.02.2021, this Court had directed the respondent no. 2 to file a specific affidavit on the point of the petitioner’s assertion that despite filing the revision petition against the order passed by the respondent no. 3, the office of the respondent no. 2 neither numbered the said revision nor any date of hearing was given on the ground that the office of the respondent no. 2 was lying vacant. However, instead of filing a specific affidavit on the said aspect by the respondent no. 2, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 contesting the writ petition on merit undermining the fact that the petitioner’s revision is pending adjudication in the court of the respondent no. 2. 8. Thus, keeping in view that the revision preferred by the petitioner in the court of the respondent no. 2, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 contesting the writ petition on merit undermining the fact that the petitioner’s revision is pending adjudication in the court of the respondent no. 2. 8. Thus, keeping in view that the revision preferred by the petitioner in the court of the respondent no. 2 against the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 25/2018-19 is still pending adjudication, the respondent no. 2 is directed to expedite the hearing of the said case and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that the respondent no. 2 being the revisional authority shall dispose of R.M.A. No. 04/2021 according to its own merit without being prejudiced by the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. 11. I.A. No. 4729 of 2020 also stands disposed of.