Bhupendra Singh Anand @ B.S. Anand vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1940 Jhar

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P.(C) No. 1796 of 2013
                        -----

1. Bhupendra Singh Anand @ B.S. Anand, Son of Late Harnam Singh Anand, resident of Pee Pee Compound, P.O. - Chutia, P.S. Hindpiri, District - Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. City Motor Stores, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

2. Arjun Mirpuri, Son of Late Balram Mirpuri, resident of 3, Bharatpuri, Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. Lilaram & Sons, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

3. (i) Jasbir Kaur

(ii) Taranbir Singh Sahni

(iii) Pavandeep Singh Sahni

(iv) Guneet Singh Sahni All R/O Pee Pee Compound, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Hindpiri, Ranchi.

4. Chandan Arora, son of late Tek Chand Arora, resident of P.O. Ratu Road, P.S. - Sukhdeonagar, District - Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. Matching Emporium, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

5. Mokhtar Hassan, son of late Hafiz Zamiruddin, resident of Hindpiri, P.O. & P.S. - Hindpiri, District - Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. Navneet, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Daily Market, District - Ranchi

6. Sajda Khatoon, daughter of Md. Khursid, resident of Konka Road, P.O. Church Road, P.S. - Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi, and Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Boot House, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

7. Harinder Singh @ H.Singh, son of late Harnam Singh, resident of Pee Pee Compound, P.O. - Chutia, P.S. Hindpiri, District - Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. Anand Motor, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

8. Sudhir Bhatia, son of late Madan Lal Bhatia, resident of Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District - Ranchi, Proprietor of Hotel Veena, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi.

9. Md. Altaf Ansari, son of late Umed Ali, resident of Boreya, Kanke, P.O. & P.S. Kanke, District - Ranchi and Proprietor of M/s. Medicine Shop, Shop No.09, S.K.Sahay Market, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. - Daily Market, District - Ranchi .... ... Petitioners Versus Ranchi Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, having its office P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. ... ... Respondent

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioners :Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, Advocate

------

Order No. 10/Dated 12th May, 2022

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India whereby and whereunder following

prayer has been made :-

"To issue appropriate writ, order or direction

restraining the respondents from enhancing the rate of

rent/license fee any further."

2. It appears from the writ petition, wherein statement

has been made at paragraph 5 thereof that against the

enhancement of the license fee, a miscellaneous appeal was

filed before the District Judge, Ranchi being Miscellaneous

Appeal No.15 of 2004 but the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 12.09.2006.

3. Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, learned counsel appearing for

the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, has submitted by

referring to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed

on behalf of Ranchi Municipal Corporation dated

09.05.2022 wherein the stand about dismissal of the

miscellaneous appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004,

has been taken. He submits that since against the

enhancement the miscellaneous appeal has already been

dismissed but the said order has not been assailed by the

writ petitioner and without assailing the same, the instant

writ petition has been filed seeking direction by issuance of

command upon the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for

issuance of restrainment order in enhancement of the

license fee, which according to him, is not permissible as

because so long as the order passed by the District Judge

in Miscellaneous appeal No.15 of 2004 is in operation and

unless it will be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari, there

cannot be any order by issuing mandamus on the

concerned authority.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the

parties, perused the averments made in the affidavits as

also the documents appended to the writ petition.

5. This Court, after going through the affidavits filed

on behalf of the parties, has found that the fact about

raising of the issue of enhancement of license fee before the

District Judge, Ranchi by way of filing miscellaneous

appeal being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004 is not in dispute.

However, prayer has been made in the writ petition by

invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of command upon the

Ranchi Municipal Corporation for restrainment order for

enhancement of the license fee since the issue of

enhancement of license fee, although for one year, has been

agitated by the writ petitioners by filing appeal before the

District Judge, Ranchi, being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004,

which has already been dismissed but the said order has

not been challenged. Therefore, unless the order passed by

the District Judge, Ranchi dated 12.09.2006 in Misc.

Appeal No.15 of 2004 is quashed, there is no question of

issuance of any command, as has been sought for by the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. However, submission has been made by Mr.

A.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the

order passed by the District Judge, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal

No.15 of 2004 is only for one year in this case, therefore,

the said dismissal will not operate adverse to the interest of

the writ petitioners. The license fee for the subsequent year

which has been enhanced has been questioned in this writ

petition.

7. But this Court is not impressed with such

argument, reason being that when the initial enhancement

of the license fee itself has been accepted without assailing

the order passed by the District Judge in Misc. Appeal

No.15 of 2004, there is no question of issuance of general

direction restraining the Ranchi Municipal Corporation not

to enhance the license fee for the subsequent years.

8. Accordingly and in view of the discussions made

hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the instant writ

petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. Consequently, I.A. No.4489 of 2020 (stay petition)

also stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/