Dilip Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3478 Jhar

                                  1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P.(C) No. 2237 of 2015
                            ........

Dilip Singh                               .... ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others           .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
            (Through : Video Conferencing)
                                ............
For the Petitioner                : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
                                  : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State          : Ms. Ruchi, Rampuria, A.C. to
                                    Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II
For the Respondent No.5           : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                 ........
26/20.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Roy assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the State, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II and learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. Indrajit Sinha.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on 20.05.2015 against the notice dated 24.07.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 (Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh), directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises within the period of 24 hours and also for issuance an appropriate writ / writs commanding upon the respondents to restore the possession of the suit premises in favour of the petitioner forthwith by removing the lock, which was put by State authorities on 25.7.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondent no.5, Fazle Ali, son of Late Sabir Ali, Resident of Kallu Chowk, Pagmil, P.O., P.S. & District - Hazaribagh on 09.10.2002 for sale of land of measuring 0.36 acres described in Schedule i.e. Village- Sarley, P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Holding no.176 Building Lease, Plot no.428/678, Area 0.36 acres out of 1.30 acres, with boundary i.e. North - Road, South - remaining portion of Plot No. 428/678 of the First Party, East - remaining portion of Plot No. 428/678 of the First Party and West - remaining portion of Plot No. 428/678 of the First Party,

The said agreement entered between the parties on the consideration of Rs.5,61,000/- and the first party Fazle Ali has already received Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance money from the second party i.e. Dilip Singh (petitioner) towards the consideration and the balance amount of Rs.4,61,000/- remains to be paid on certain conditions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.5, Fazle Ali has also filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for grant of permission to transfer the lease in favour of the petitioner - Dilip Singh, S/o Keshri Singh on 23.11.2005.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Roy that prior to that, a Title Suit No.65/2004 has been instituted before learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh, wherein the petitioner being the plaintiff and Fazle Ali (Respondent no. 5) being the defendant, with respect to decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant be directed to execute the final deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff within a time specified in the decree, failing which the court on behalf of the defendant would execute and present the same for its registration before the learned Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh and also for the cost of the suit. The suit ended on the basis of compromise between the parties and decree was accordingly prepared. Against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2005 passed in Title Suit No. 65/2004, Title Execution Case No. 27/2014 filed by the Dilip Singh ultimately dismissed in terms of order dated 04.07.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notice has been issued to the Dilip Singh (petitioner) vide Memo No. 60 dated 24.07.2014 by the court of Executive Magistrate, Sadar Hazaribag, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove illegal possession over the khasmahal land of Village- Sarley having Building Lease Holding No.176, Plot No. 428, 678, Area 1.26 acres within 24 hours.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Roy has submitted that the notice dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure-6) issued by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribag itself shows that no averment have been made with regard to initiation of any proceeding against the petitioner, as such notice dated 24.07.2014 for vacating the premises is without any

jurisdiction or without any initiation of any proceeding under the law. Even if the petitioner is in illegal possession over the land then also petitioner can only be removed after following the due process of law and he cannot be removed within 24 hours of serving the notice, as such, the notice issued by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh is without jurisdiction and not in accordance with law and violative of principles of natural justice, as such, it may be set aside and quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Roy has referred the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120. Para-12 & 22 of the said judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question.

22. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the Court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, and the Court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice, and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India."

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted that it is true that respondent no.5 has entered into an

agreement with the writ petitioner with respect to sale of a khasmahal land, for which the lease was granted by the State and has entered into an agreement.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that recommendation for renewal of lease from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2038 has been granted vide Memo No. 384 dated 23.05.2013 after agreement with writ petitioner dated 09.10.2002.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the suit was filed by Dilip Singh against respondent no.5 without impleading the owner i.e. the State, as the suit property being a Khasmahal land as no relief has been sought against the State, as such, the judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribag on the basis of compromise is not suffering from any irregularities or illegality and pursuant thereto, the respondent no.5 has assured that whatever steps will be taken by writ petitioner for getting an approval or permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, he will co-operate in obtaining permission for the same, but no permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh with regard to transfer of the aforesaid land.

Subsequently, the writ petitioner filed another Title Suit vide Title Suit No.27/2013 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, in which State of Jharkhand has been impleaded also as defendant, but injunction was not granted in terms of order dated 23.07.2013 holding that the plaintiff has no right and title over the suit property and also if the land is sold, the loss shall be caused to the State as because the land being khasmahal, which is Government land and the renewal of lease is subject matter of the State, in which third party has no right.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has further submitted that the petitioner Thereafter, the petitioner -Dilip Singh being the plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No.08/2013 before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh against the order of refusal of the injunction and same was heard and dismissed in terms of order dated 09.05.2014, holding that the plaintiff / appellant has no right, title and interest over the suit land and that to without according permission of the Deputy Commissioner / State, if he does any act, it will be at his own cost and he

will be responsible for the same because in the event of non-transfer of the land he will simply be entitled to get the amount given to the defendant / respondent no.1 (Fazle Ali) lessee and that too without interest.

Further, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has submitted that considering both the law as well as the fact, the court of Principal District Judge, dismissed the Misc. Appeal on the ground that no prima-facie case for the purpose of injunction is made out. The other ingredients, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have equally been answered in the findings of the court below in favour of the defendant / respondent no.1 and against the plaintiff / appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has further submitted that petitioner-Dilip Singh preferred writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.2800/2014 before this Court against the order of refusal of injunction passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribag on 23.07.2013 in Title Suit No.27/2013, which has been confirmed by order dated 09.05.2014 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Misc. Appeal No.08/2013. The W.P. (C) No. 2800/2014 has been dismissed on 06.08.2015.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has further submitted that prior to this, writ petitioner Dilip Singh has preferred another writ petition before this Hon'ble Court on 31.07.2013, which was registered as W.P.(C) No.4690/2013 with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs commanding upon the respondents and restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the suit premises constructed on Plot No. 428/768, Holding no.176 at Village - Sarley. This was with respect to the notice, although no impugned order has been made in the said writ petition, but ultimately the application was filed vide I.A. No.3816/2014 to challenge the notice dated 24.07.2014, issued subsequently by Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribag, which is impugned in the present writ petition as Annexure-6. The said I.A. no.3816/2014 was allowed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.11.2014 and the petitioner was directed to file amended writ petition within a period of two weeks. However, instead of filing amended writ petition before this Court, the

petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, in terms of order dated 16.04.2015 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition before the High Court. Thereafter, petitioner has filed W.P. (C) No. 2800/2014, which was also dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 06.08.2015.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has further submitted that another writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.6035/2014 has been filed on 26.11.2014 by the writ petitioner - Dilip Singh for issuance of appropriate writ / writs commanding upon the respondents to restore the possession of the house situated on Plot No. 428/678, Holding no.176, at Village-Sarley, Harzaribag from which the petitioner was illegally evicted by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at the instance of the respondent no.4 (Fazle Ali) and the said writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 17.04.2015 without any liberty to prefer any other writ petition, as such, notice contained in Memo no. 60 dated 24.07.2014 has already been assailed by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4690/2013, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh writ petition on 16.04.2015 and another writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.6035/2014, which was dismissed simplicitor as withdrawn in terms of order dated 17.04.2015, thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed as W.P.(C) No.2237/2015 on 20.05.2015 with a prayer that notice dated 24.07.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 by which the petitioner was directed to vacate the suit premises within the period of 24 hours and also for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs commanding upon the respondents to restore the possession of the suit premises in favour of the petitioner forthwith by removing the lock which was put by state authorities on 25.07.2014, it itself shows that petitioner has already been dispossessed and the possession has been taken by the State on 25.07.2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Mr. Indrajit Sinha has further submitted that no relief can be granted as the earlier injunction petition has been refused by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Hazaribag, affirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag and Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.2800/2014 and now, even though

the writ petitioner is admitting that he has been dispossessed on 25.07.2014, his possession cannot be restored in such manner, where he has no legal right to come over the land and as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha has further submitted that writ petitioner has preferred another writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 2800/2014, though that was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2015, but this fact has been suppressed deliberately by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, as such, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560, it has been held by the Apex Court that repeated filing of the writ petition for the same relief amounts to abuse of process of law and the same amounts to criminal contempt and the writ petition has been disposed of with cost of Rs. 50,000/-, as such, the present writ petition may also be disposed of with exemplary cost.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner of Arunima Baruah (Supra) has already been taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha (Supra).

Para-12 of the said judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:- "12. As the law operating in the field has recently been laid down by this Court in Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [(2007) 6 SCC 120] in the following terms, it is not necessary to reiterate the same over again. However, therein in the peculiar fact of the matter, it was observed : (SCC p. 129, para 22)

22. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the Court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the Court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice, and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India."

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has further submitted that the writ petition would have only been maintainable, if there would have been any peculiar fact when several suits are pending, when other writ petitions for the same relief have already been dismissed as withdrawn and when petitioner has no locus to come over the land, as such, relief sought by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed and this Court may not invoke the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Para-16 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha (Supra) may profitably quoted hereunder:-

"16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt."

Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, A.C. to Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the State is accepting and adopting the argument made by private respondent no. 5.

Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, has further submitted that from perusal of Annexure-2 the Deed of Agreement executed between Fazle Ali and Dilip Singh (petitioner), it appears that the land was originally allotted to Mrs. Zarina Hamid, wife of A.F.A Hamid (O.B.E.G.I.P., who was the first I.G. of Village-Sarle, Hazaribagh, as such Fazle Ali has no right to enter into an agreement without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the State, Ms. Ruchi Rampuria has further submitted Fazle Ali has claimed himself to be the legal heir of Mrs. Zarina Hamid and thus he entered into agreement with Dilip Singh, which is itself illegal and not acceptable to the Government.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that earlier the State has filed counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 4690/2013, which has

already been appended as Annexure-A of the counter affidavit filed in the present writ petition and reliance has been placed upon paragraphs-16, 17, 18, 19 & 20, which are re-produced below:-

"16. That it is stated that the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, letter no. 111 dated 12.10.11 and SDO Sadar, Hazaribagh vide letter no. 1016/Go dated 25.5.2012 asked the Khasmahal cell to get the matter enquired.

17. That it is further stated that after enquiry and report by Halka Karamchari / Kanungo ( Khas Mahal Cell) reported that the building Zarina Villa is under illegal occupation of the petitioner. In view of this report, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh passed order to get illegal occupation of the premises including Zarina Villa Vacated.

18. That it is also stated that after the proceeding was initiated against Mr Dilip Singh on 07.09.2012 by Khas Mahal Section and a notice was served through administration by Additional Collector, Hazaribagh vide memo no. 343/KM, Hazaribagh dated 07.09.2012. The petitioner has been given enough opportunity to defend his case as evident from a notice dated 7.9.2012 by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh vide memo no.343/Km, Hazaribagh in which he was directed to appear along with all relevant documents. However, in total disregard of the said notice, he never bothered to appear.

19. That it is stated that the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh vide letter no. 5/KM dated 2.1.2013 conveyed DC's order to the SDO, Hazaribagh and requested him to get the premises vacated.

20. That it is stated that the SDO, Sadar, Hazaribagh passed order vide memo no.97/Go Hazaribagh dated 19.1.2013 and deputed Mr. Sailesh Kumar, Circle Officer, Hazaribagh with armed force to get the premises vacated from the illegal occupation of the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Singh.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the averment made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P. (C) No. 4690/2013 has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Roy. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner has every knowledge regarding the initiation of proceeding, but to mislead the Court, several writ petitions have been filed one by one.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that it is wrong to say that proceeding has not been initiated, rather the notice has been served upon the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner never co-operated

nor made himself available to the said proceeding, as such, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

This factual aspect of the matter has not been denied or disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

After considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that a large number of litigations in the form of title suit with respect to Khas mahal land without impleading State as a party have been initiated, initially to justify wrong deed of agreement entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 5 with respect to khasmahal land, which is admittedly a Government land and to get a government land illegally, Title Suit No. 65/2004 has been instituted, which ended into compromise without impleading the State as a party, who is admittedly owner of the land on the ground that no relief has been sought for against the State is not acceptable to this Court as argued by the learned counsel of the respondent no. 5 as because in the said Title Suit No. 65/2004, which was suit for specific performance of contract with relief sought for with respect to decree for specific performance of contract in favour of plaintiff and defendant be directed to execute the final deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff within time specified in the decree, failing which the court on behalf of defendant would execute and present the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh with respect to land belonging to the State of Jharkhand.

After such decree on the basis of compromise, Title Execution Case No. 27/2014 was filed, which was dismissed on 04.07.2015, but these documents have deliberately not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the petitioner.

However, subsequent Title Suit No. 27/2013 has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for injunction, but the injunction was not granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Hazaribag on 23.07.2013. Against the said order, writ petitioner has preferred Misc. Appeal No. 08/2013 before the Principal District Judge, Hazaribag, which was also dismissed in terms of order dated 09.05.2014.

Thereafter, writ petition vide W.P.(C) No. 4690/2013 has been preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 16.04.2015 and against the said orders, writ petition was filed before this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 2800/2014, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2015. Another writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner vide W.P. (C) No. 6035/2014, which was also dismissed in terms of order dated 17.04.2015. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

Records of W.P.(C) No. 4690/2013 and W.P. (C) No. 6035/2014 have been tagged with the present writ petition in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.07.2021, as such, this Court has occasion to see the entire records of those writ petitions.

From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State in W.P. (C) No. 4690/2013, it appears that the averment made in the counter affidavit has not been refuted or replied by the Writ Petitioner, as such, it seems that the proceeding has been initiated and thereafter, the petitioner has been noticed, but petitioner did not bother to appear before the court below and thus, eviction order was passed without mentioning the said proceeding in the notice dated 24.07.2014 passed by Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribag is not causing any prejudice to such litigants, who are filing one after another litigation by suppressing one fact or another, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha (Supra), the writ petition is fit to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come up before this Court with clean hands even in filing this fourth writ petition in succession.

Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

However, before parting with the order, this Court thinks it proper to bring to the notice of the State of Jharkhand particularly, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand that this Court has found in the cases of Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Hazaribag, that Khasmahal land, which belongs to the Government is

being encroached or captured illegally by some of the persons. The Khasmahal Officers deputed on such post in the district are not vigilant on their duty and these litigations are multiplying in number because of their inaction.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reform, Government of Jharkhand is directed to notify and publish the list of all the Khasmahal lands in the State Government Website after duly certified and verified from the Khasmahal Officer, Circle Officer as well as Deputy Commissioner of the respective districts, so that such cases may not crop up and there shall not be any multiplicity of the suit with respect to the Government land.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand is directed to notify the Khasmahal lands in the Government Website within a period of six months from the date of order after duly authorized and authenticated by the Khasmahal Officer / Circle officer / Deputy Commissioner, with reasons that how the list is authenticated.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand shall also inquire about the conduct of the Khasmahal Officers in such cases and after being satisfied that they are indulged in dealing with the private parties and they have failed in protecting Government land, the Additional Chief Secretary, is directed initiate a departmental proceeding against the erring Khasmahal Officers.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms shall also develop the standard operating procedure to protect government land i.e. Khasmahal, forest land and other forms of government land, so that they may not be registered by the Sub-Registrar, as all these branches of different offices comes under his jurisdiction. Such standard operating procedure must be finalised within six months and to that effect, this Court shall be informed.

Further, this Court also directs the Registrar General of this Hon'ble High Court to issue directions to all the Civil Courts particularly, the

Principal District & Sessions Judges including the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi that Sirestedar shall be very careful while scrutinising the plaint before its admission. If the land belongs to the State i.e. Khasmahal, forest land, government land, the State must be represented by the parties either by the Circle Officer or by the Khasmahal Officer and by the Deputy Commissioner of the District. If any laches on the part of the Sirestedar is found by this Court in future, this Court will initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Sirestedar as this Court has found such laches in the district of Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Hazaribag, as such, learned Judicial Officers are also directed to be cautious and careful while passing compromise decree with regard to Government land.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand and the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi for compliance.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil-Jay/-