The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact is not maintainable and a dispute as to forging of the signature and thumb impression requires forensic examination, such facts cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding laid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was granted a mining lease for a period of 10 years and after all the statutory clearances, the Petitioner conducted mining operations. However, the proceedings were initiated by District Magistrate cum Deputy Commissioner and it was founded that the Gram Sabha held on 12th December 2014 was not convened and conducted as per the norms and standards set by the Government and, therefore, the proceeding dated 12th December 2014 was null and void. Furthermore, aggrieved by the termination of lease agreement, the lessee has approached the present case.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the order of the termination of lease was against the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is a well-established rule that a writ petition including contentious factual issues cannot be maintained. Since the Deputy Commissioner noted that forensic investigation is necessary to resolve a disagreement regarding the forging of a signature and thumb impression, these facts cannot be decided in a proceeding conducted in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It was furthermore observed that the notice was issued and the Petitioner had ample opportunities to controvert the stand of the villagers by producing cogent and clinching materials.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that challenge to the termination order premised on the breach of rules of natural justice must fail.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Harish Kumar Vig V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 174 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G-IA, Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C to A.A.G-IA
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
