Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. quashed an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division for lack of reasonable opportunity given for hearing to the petitioners.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.08.1995 passed by the Circle Officer, Barwadih and also for quashing the order dated 13-12-2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau.

Counsel Sandeep Verma and Sumit Kumar on behalf of the petitioners submitted that long-standing zamabandi running in the name of the petitioners has been recommended to be cancelled by the Circle Officer, Barwadih vide order dated 19.08.1995 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. They further submitted that the order dated 13.12.2013 has been passed without assigning any reason, which cannot be allowed to be sustained in the eyes of law.

Counsel Sanjeev Thakur appearing on behalf of respondent-State submitted that they have already appeared in the court and there is no illegality in the passing of the impugned order dated 13-12-2013.

The Court, after perusal of the order dated 13-12-2013, found it cryptic in nature. The Court further relied on a judgment titled Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite (P), Ltd. (2018) 8 SCC 443 and held that an order must be passed after providing reasons and discussing the case of the parties, that has not been done in the case in hand. In view of the judgment rendered above by the Supreme Court, it was held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. [Anugrah Narayan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 213, decided by 27-02-2020]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.