Helena Lakra vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3552 Jhar

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P.(S) No.2205 of 2013
                             -------

Helena Lakra ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Industries Department, Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Director of Industries, government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Gumla.

5. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Industries Department, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

7. The Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondents With W.P.(S) No.4119 of 2013

-------

Helana Lakra ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Industries Department, Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Director of Industries, State Directorate of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Gumla.

5. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Industries Department, Patna.

6. The General Manager, District Industries Center, Jahanabad, Bihar. ... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner :Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Res.State :Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.I For the Res. Bihar :Mr. Binit Chandra, Adv.

-------

Through:- Video Conferencing

-------

07/22.09.2021 Since both these writ applications

have been preferred by one person and are being disposed

of by this common order.

2. Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner in both these writ applications fairly submits that

he is not having any instruction from his client since long,

as such he is unable to press this case. He further submits

that interest of justice would be sufficed if the petitioner is

given liberty to approach the appropriate authority for

redressal of her grievance, if the same has not been

redressed till date, if so advised.

3. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the

respondent-State does not have any objection.

4. In view of the limited submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties, without going into merit of the case;

the both these writ applications, are hereby, disposed of by

giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned

respondent, if so advised, within a period of Eight Weeks

from today. If any such representation is filed within the

aforesaid period, the same shall be considered in

accordance with law, rule, regulation and policy decision of

the Government as well as in the light of the

judgments/documents supplied by the petitioner along

with representation.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ

application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-