Jharkhand High Court
Anand Kumar vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 12 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:28520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 722 of 2015
----------
Anand Kumar, son of Sri Jadunandan Roy, resident of Flat No. 302,
Krishna Shree Apartment, Anantpur, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District
Ranchi. ....... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi, P.O., P.S. & District New
Delhi.
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan,
HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi.
5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest &
Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
6. Mr. B.C. Nigam, father's name not known to the petitioner, at present
posted as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest
& Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : In Person
For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi, Sr.P.C
Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, AC to SC (L&C)-III
----------
C.A.V. on 07/08/2025 Pronounced on 12/09/2025
Heard the Petitioner who had appeared in person and Ld.
Counsel for the respective Respondents.
2. The Petitioner in the instant writ application prays for issuance
of appropriate writ(s) / order(s) / direction(s) commanding upon the
Respondents showing them cause as to how and under which provisions
of law, the Respondent No. 6 against whom charge sheet has been
submitted by the Vigilance Bureau in connection with Balmikinagar
(West Champaran) P.S. Case No. 039/93 on 21.07.2007, Laukireya (West
2025:JHHC:28520
Champaran) P.S. Case No. 075/93 on 21.07.2007 and Naurangiya (West
Champaran) P.S. Case No. 04/94 on 21.07.2007; has been promoted from
the post of Chief Conservator Forest to the post of Additional Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest and from the post of Additional Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest and from Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the highest post
of Head of Forest Force by the State Respondents as the same is in utter
violation to the resolution contained in Memo No. 6227 dated 20.11.2008
and the settled law of land.
The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate and suitable
direction or command upon the State authorities to produce before this
Court, the entire files and the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion
Committee, which is in violation of the Government Resolution, has
granted promotion to the Respondent No. 6 on the post of Chief
Conservator of Forest, Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest and to the highest post of Head of Forest
Force and also to quash the same including the notification contained in
Memo No. 453 dated 31.01.2015; whereby and whereunder the
Respondent No. 6 has been promoted to the post of Head of Forest Force
in the State of Jharkhand in utter violation of the Government Resolution
and settled law.
The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate and suitable
direction or command upon the Respondents to recall the promotion
orders and to demote the Respondent No. 6 on the post of Chief
Conservator of Forest And/or at best, resort to the sealed cover
arrangement in relation to the promotion of the Respondent No. 6 from
the date of submission of charge sheet against him in competent criminal
Court.
The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate and suitable
direction or command upon the Respondents to fix the
responsibility/liability upon the Officers who have illegally promoted the
2025:JHHC:28520
Respondent No. 6 against whom there had been charge sheet filed before
Competent Court.
3. From the record, it appears that though the instant writ
application was preferred on 21.02.2015 with the prayer for mandamus,
however, from record it further appears that the petitioner had also filed
an interlocutory application for amending the prayer for issuance of Quo
Warranto being I.A. No. 3543 of 2015 dated 01.07.2015 but the said
interlocutory application was never pressed because there is no order
with regard to such interlocutory application.
4. As a matter of fact, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
observed vide its order dated 23.01.2025 that the petitioner-in-person is
challenging the promotion of the respondent no. 6, who has been
promoted but the petitioner-in-person is not claiming his promotion; nor
he has stated that he is an affected party; as such, on the ground of locus
standi the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit about his credentials.
For brevity, order dated 23.01.2025 is extracted herein below:
"The petitioner is present in person.
2. The petitioner is challenging the promotion of respondent
No.6, who has been promoted. The petitioner is not claiming his
promotion nor has he stated that he is affected by the said
promotion.
3. What is the locus standi of the petitioner is not clear. The
credential of the petitioner is also not there in the writ petition.
4. I direct the petitioner to furnish his credentials within a
week.
5. List this case in the next week under the heading "for
orders."
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench
of this Court, supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner;
however, from the entire averments made in the said affidavit, it appears
that he has given details about the private respondent and the citation of
Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments on the issue of locus standi and why
the credential of petitioner is not required.
He has also made averments w.r.t. the applicability of Section
19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, institutional and functional
integrity, requirement of sanction for promotion etc.
2025:JHHC:28520
However, only in one paragraph, he has stated about his
credentials indicating about few FIRs being 25/14, 26/14, 120/14 before
Chatarpur Police Station which was lodged against him and as per him it
was retaliatory measures by the Respondents.
6. As referred to hereinabove, the coordinate Bench has passed an
order with regard to filing of affidavit about personal credentials of the
Petitioner, who was appearing in-person. In the whole of affidavit filed
pursuant to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench barring one small
paragraph at heading (xiii)-petitioner's background and credibility, the
entire affidavit is against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench that
there was no requirement about credentials of the petitioner. Even citing
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey
Vs. State of West Bengal1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has said that
petitioner's credentials are irrelevant if the petition raises genuine public
concerns.
7. At the cost of repetition, the petitioner, who has been appearing
in-person never pressed the interlocutory application as referred to herein
above for amending the prayer from mandamus to quo warranto and that
is the reason the coordinate Bench has passed the above referred order
and the petitioner instead of giving his credentials, he sat over the order
passed by the coordinate Bench in the form of affidavit, inasmuch as, on
the one hand, the Petitioner had not given any details about FIR number
mentioned in para-XIII at page 13 of the affidavit dated 28.01.2025 to
say on which date the FIR was lodged and what is the stage before the
Trial Court against this Petitioner; and on the other hand, the entire
affidavit is against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench that there
was no requirement about credentials of the petitioner.
However, one thing is certain that there are three criminal cases
which are pending as admitted by the petitioner-in-person being FIR
Nos. 25/14, 26/14, 120/14 but for the reason best known to him, he has
not mentioned any details regarding stage of trial etc.
(2004) 3 SCC 349
2025:JHHC:28520
8. Another aspect of the matter is that during course of hearing,
this Court asked from the Petitioner who was appearing in person; as to
whether the private respondent i.e. Respondent No.6 is still in service;
the petitioner replied that he has already retired in the year 2018. Thus,
even otherwise, this case has become infructuous.
9. Moreover, the ground for which instant writ application was
filed making allegation upon the private respondent is that a criminal
case has been lodged against him which is pending before the Special
Vigilance Court, Muzaffarpur under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Indian Forest Act and Indian Penal Code.
Since the competent Court is in seisin of the matter; therefore,
looking to the gravity of charge any order passed in this writ application
will certainly hamper the trial.
10. Further, in the open Court the Petitioner has admitted that
though three cases were filed against him but he has not mentioned in the
writ petition and only pursuant to the order of this Court with regard to
his credentials, he has given the FIR No.
All these things go to show that the Petitioner, who is
appearing in person, has suppressed every material fact which is against
him and basically, this case appears to be personal vendetta against a
person who has already retired in the year 2018 itself. Moreover, the
criminal case lodged against the private respondent is already pending
before the competent Criminal Court and the said Court is in seisin with
the matter as informed by the Petitioner himself.
11. During course of argument, the Petitioner argued that there is
no need to give personal credential of the applicant in the case is of quo
warranto; but as stated hereinabove, neither he had made any prayer in
the main writ application for quo warranto; nor the interlocutory
application was ever pressed till today. Moreover, this Court has passed
an order directing the Petitioner to give his credential, but instead of
giving details of his credentials, and/or filing any recall petition to
modify the order, he has basically sat over the order passed by the
2025:JHHC:28520
coordinate bench and filed an affidavit that no credential is required and
as stated hereinabove, only in one paragraph, he has just given three FIR
Nos. but not the details about the stage of the FIR.
12. During course of argument, the petitioner-in-person has also
referred to the judgment reported in Ashok Lanka & Anr. Vs. Rishi Dixit
& Ors.2. However, the facts are distinguishable, inasmuch as, in the said
case, petitioner who sought for quo warranto was not facing any criminal
trial. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner himself admitted in the
open Court that there is one more case filed against him apart from three
cases of which the FIR Nos. are given and due to inadvertence, he has
not mentioned in the affidavit showing his credentials, as such, the
aforesaid judgment is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of
the instant case.
13. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the Petitioner has
failed to make out a case and accordingly, the instant writ application
deserves to be, and is, hereby dismissed.
Though it is a fit case to impose cost upon the Petitioner, who
is appearing in-person; however, no cost is being imposed. Instead, the
Petition is cautioned not to file such frivolous petitions in future.
14. All Pending I.A.s, stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
kunal/-
AFR/NAFR
(2005) 5 SCC 598 (page 108)
