Jharkhand High Court
Roshni Khalkho & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.114 of 2024
-----
Roshni Khalkho & Others
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others
... Respondent(s)
WITH
Cont. Case (Civil) No.331 of 2024
-----
Rina Kumari
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Vishwambhar, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate (through VC)
For the O.P. : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.
Mr. Shahabuddin, S.C.-VII
Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, AC to S.C.-VII
Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to S.C.-VII
For the State E. C. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Ms. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate
Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the CEO : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
.........
20/ 10.09.2025: Affidavit filed by the State in Court is kept on record.
2. Reference be made to order dated 02.09.2025, passed in this case.
On 02.09.2025, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
appeared in person and stated that a decision was taken to conduct the
Triple Test first and thereafter, proceed for the elections of the Urban
Local Bodies. On the aforesaid submission, this Court directed the
State to produce the entire file.
3. Today, the file No. 8/pquko/102/2018/ u0fo0vk0, which is in
relation to the election, has been placed before this Court. I have
perused the note sheets. The note sheets contained total 93 pages. For
the purpose of this order, it is not necessary to deal with all these 93
pages. The noting dated 05.01.2024 to 19.01.2024 is in page Nos. 89 to
93. In these notings there is no whisper about the order dated
04.01.2024, passed in W.P.(C) No.1923 of 2023, which contained
directions to hold the elections. Without any reference being made, the
file has moved from one authority to another. The persons who had
dealt with the same is one Gyanendra Kumar, Additional Secretary
and Mr. Vinay Kumar Choubey, Principal Secretary. The Chief
Minister endorsed the notings of these officials.
4. This Court gets an impression that when the matter came up
before the Chief Minister, he had to rely upon the notings of the
Additional Secretary and the Principal Secretary. It is surprising why
the order of this Court was not brought to the notice of the Chief
Minister or the Minister In-charge, as prima facie from these notings, I
am of the opinion that the order was not brought to his notice.
5. So far as this contempt petition is concerned, it is necessary to
highlight that a election of the Urban Local Bodies were not being held
in the State of Jharkhand, thus, these two writ petitions being W.P.(C)
No.1923 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.2290 of 2023 were filed before this
Court. The State appeared and put forth their defence. Their defence
was that without conducting the Triple Test, the elections for the
Urban Local Bodies could not be held. Thus, the issue which fell for
consideration is whether conducting the Triple Test is mandatory for
holding the Elections in the Urban Local Bodies.
6. After hearing the parties and relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same issue in the case of Suresh
Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 770,
this Court held that holding the Triple Test is not sine qua non and the
State has to conduct the elections. This Court also held that there
cannot be ad-hoc system to replace democracy.
7. The judgment passed by this Bench was challenged by the State
in L.P.A. No.57 of 2024 (The State of Jharkhand & Others vs. Roshini
Khalkho and Others). A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the
L.P.A. on 12.09.2024.
Thus, the judgment and the direction of this Court was affirmed
by the Letters Patent Appellate Court. The parties admits that the State
did not move before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging these
orders.
8. Inspite of the order passed by this Court the elections of the
Urban Local Bodies were not held. The writ petitioner filed this
contempt application bringing to the notice of this Court the alleged
gross willful violation of order of this Court.
9. This contempt was filed on 02.02.2024. Time was granted to the
State on numerous occasions on their prayer. In the meantime, on
25.10.2024 it was informed that State Election Commissioner has
already been appointed. Be it noted that since there was no State
Election Commissioner, election could not be held.
10. Thereafter, also time and again, adjournment was granted on the
request of the State. On 13.01.2025, when the matter was taken up, on
behalf of the State Election Commission it was submitted that there
was absolute non-cooperation from the State and the Election
Commission of India. It was submitted that the State is not providing
approval for conducting the elections on the pretext of non-compliance
of triple test and as the Election Commission of India is also not
providing the voter list. This Court, in the aforesaid order at paragraph
3 had reiterated that the question of holding Triple Test, before the
election has been set at rest by this Court in the order passed in the
writ petition, thus again the issue of non-compliance of Triple Test,
which is wrecked up by the State amounts to deliberate and willful
violation of order of this Court with an intentnion not to hold the
elections. It was held that prima facie a contempt is made out because
of the willful inaction of the State. Thus, the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand was directed to remain present on the next
date.
11. On 16.01.2025, the Chief Secretary of the State was present. The
Chief Secretary submitted before this Court that within four months,
they will be in a position to hold the elections. On this submission, the
appearance of the Chief Secretary was dispensed with and the matter
was adjourned.
12. In the meantime, the State Election Commission started the
disintegration process of the voter list.
13. Again, when the matter was taken up on 18.07.2025 (that is much
after the four months' time as sought for by the Chief Secretary), it was
informed that the election has not been held. This Court in the said
order has held that serious intent/effort on part of the State is lacking.
This Court reiterated decision in the case of Suresh Mahajan (supra)
and the judgment of this Court and held that the issue of Triple Test
cannot now come in the way of holding elections in view of the final
decision of this Court which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division
Bench, which has attained finality. This Court also held that the State
has come up with a very novel way and prepared a shield for not
complying the order of this Court. Finding the matter to be serious, on
18.07.2025, this Court directed the Chief Secretary to remain present to
show-cause as to why not charge be framed for committing contempt.
14. On 02.09.2025, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
and other Officials were present in this Court. It was stated by the
Chief Secretary that the Government of Jharkhand in principle (due to
a typographical error the word "principle" has been typed as
"person") has decided to conduct the Triple Test and thereafter will
hold the election of the Local Bodies. On the said submissions, this
Court had observed that prima facie a contempt is made out. This was
held because once the Court held that without Triple Test elections can
be held, the Executives cannot take a contra-decision to nullify the
order of this Court. Thus this Court directed to produce the entire file
which has been produced today and the noting of the pages has been
referred at a very initial paragraph of this order.
15. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed. Learned
Advocate General refers to page 32 of the said affidavit, which is a
notification dated 17.10.2022 based on a Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.19758/2021. This notification was issued pursuant to a cabinet
decision dated 10.10.2022. As per the said notification it was decided
that the election should be conducted by treating the Backward Classes
in the General Category and thereafter to proceed accordingly. This
decision clearly suggests that without holding the Triple Test it was
decided to conduct the elections.
16. Against an order passed in W.P.(Civil) No.239 of 2022, one
contempt was filed by one Chandra Prakash Choudhary before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court being Contempt Petition (Civil) No.705 of
2022, in which a notice was issued to the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand.
17. Learned Advocate General fairly submitted that the said
contempt before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of Election
of Mukhiya. The said contempt was against the decision of the cabinet
where it was decided not to hold the Triple Test before holding the
election of Mukhia. After filing of the affidavit, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has disposed of the application vide order dated 04.05.2022. It is
necessary to quote the operating part of order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court:-
"The relief claimed in this petition to direct the State of Jharkhand to
provide reservation for Other Backward Classes qua the post of Mukhiya
(Chairman), cannot be taken forward as the election process has already
commenced.
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits
that for providing reservation for Other 2 Backward Classes, the State has
already initiated triple test process as laid down by this Court in K. Krishna
Murthy & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 202 and
restated in Vikas Kishan Rao Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported
in (2021) 6 SCC 73. Further, upon completion of that process for future
elections, thereafter, the State may take necessary steps and consider of
providing such reservation.
In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this petition.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
18. From perusal of the first paragraph of the aforesaid order, it is
clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has felt that there cannot be a
direction to the State to provide reservation for Other Backward
Classes qua the post of Mukhiya as the election process has
commenced. Further in the aforesaid order, the submission of the State
has been recorded wherein it has been mentioned that for providing
the reservation for Other Backward Classes in future elections, the
State may take necessary steps and consider for providing such
reservations. (Emphasis Supplied by me). This was only the
submission of the State, not a direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. It is the contention of the State that after this observation was
noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the contempt was
dropped. Thereafter the Cabinet had taken a decision to withdraw the
earlier Cabinet decision of 17.10.2022 and to go ahead with Triple Test.
Ber it noted that all these developments had taken place before the
order was passed in the writ petition which is the subject matter of the
contempt.
20. Learned Advocate General counsel further submits that
bonafidely the State was in a dilemma as to what to do and there was
mis-interpretation of the order which led to this fiasco. He further
submits that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Suresh Mahajan (Supra), the same was modified by order dated
18.05.2022, which permitted the State of Madhya Pradesh to notify the
election after providing the reservation pattern.
21. After hearing the parties and going through the records, the fact
which is apparent is that vide order dated 04.01.2024, this Court
directed the State to hold election without Triple Test process. The
issue whether it is necessary to hold Triple Test before conducting the
election was before this Court and this Court considering the same and
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had held that it was not
necessary to hold Triple Test to declare the elections. This decision was
not set aside by any higher Court. This order was passed on 04.01.2024
after hearing the parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit filed.
22. It is surprising that what the learned Advocate General has
stated today (based on affidavit which has been filed today), about the
contempt before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other aspects were
brought to the notice of this Court for the first time. The Counter
Affidavit in the Writ Petition filed by the State is silent on these issues.
These issues, which he has stated has got nothing to do with the Writ
Petition and this Contempt, as after the contempt was dropped by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order was passed by this Court in the Writ
Petition, directing the State to hold elections without the Triple Test.
Be it noted that nowhere the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ever held that
without Triple Test elections cannot be held. Thus, what the Advocate
General is trying to impress upon is nothing, but a shield to bypass the
effect of the order of this Court, which is impermissible. It is also to be
noted that the Contempt Application was in relation to Mukhiya
Elections only. Further, the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the Contempt Application will clearly suggest that the States took a
stand that they may take necessary steps for giving reservations
[emphasis supplied by me]. This clearly suggests that they had not
given any undertaking that without Triple Test, they will not conduct
elections.
23. Now what the State has submitted before this Court and the
stand taken by them that without Triple Test, they will not hold the
elections, on the face of it is a defiance of the order passed by this Court
in the Writ Petition, which is the subject matter of this Contempt
Application. Further the action of the Officers in not placing the order
of this Court before the Minister In-Charge or the Cabinet also
amounts to suppressing material from the highest authority. Prima
facie, I am of the opinion that this was done only to nullify the order
of this Court. This is a contempt on the face of it.
24. When there is a contempt on the face of the records, this Court
can straightaway pass an order holding a person guilty, but I refrain
myself from adopting the said process. Thus, before proceeding any
further, let notice of contempt be issued to Gyanendra Kumar,
Additional Secretary, Department of Urban Development and
Housing, Vinay Kumar Choubey (Principal Secretary), Secretary,
Department of Urban Development and Housing and Vandana Dadel,
Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand. They are noticed because
prima facie, I am of the view that they have also committed contempt
by not bringing the order of the Court to the notice of the Minister In-
Charge or the Cabinet. This fact emerges from the Notesheet in the file,
which has been produced. Notice of contempt be also issued to the
Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand.
25. It is also surprising that after 12.01.2024, there was no notings in
the file in relation to this matter, but inspite of that assurance was being
given to this Court by submitting that elections will be held that too
within four months. This Court, thus, is of the prima facie opinion that
there is deliberate and willful violation of the final order dated
04.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1923 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.2290 of
2023, which requires proceeding further against the contemnors.
26. Thus, issue notice under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court
Rules, to the Contemnors named above in paragraph 24. Office to issue
notice on these person/authorities except the Chief Secretary, to be
served to them through the Office of the Chief Secretary. So far as the
Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand is concerned, the same be served
by the Registry of the High Court. Notice should be served within a
week.
On receipt of the notice, the Contemnors will appear when
charge will be framed against them.
28. The State will ensure that this order is complied with.
29. List these cases on 14.10.2025 as first case at 10:30 A.M.
30. All the concerned officers shall remain physically present on the
aforementioned date.
31. The Court Master will prepare a second copy of the entire file
No. 8/pquko/102/2018/ u0fo0vk0 and will hand it over to the learned
Advocate General. The original file to be kept in the custody of the
Registrar General of the High Court.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S./Aditi
