[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Jha And Others vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation And ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6864 of 2025
Vijay Kumar Jha and Others ... ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Others ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate
Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, Advocate
Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.3&4: Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
For Resp.5-11,13,14: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
---------
08/Dated: 17.02.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, points out that respondent
nos.12, 15 and 16 have since expired. He also hands in a note giving
details of the legal representatives of these deceased respondents.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, leave is
granted to the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of
respondent nos.12, 15 and 16.
4. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a week.
5. Mr. Sinha states that he will appear on behalf of the legal
representatives.
6. Accordingly, service upon the legal representatives is waived.
7. This matter relates to the assignment of the learned Single
Judge. However, by order dated 15th of January 2026, the learned
Single Judge noted that there was a conflict between two orders
which would require consideration by the Division Bench. Based upon
this, the matter was placed before the Division Bench.
8. The conflict, according to the order of 15th January 2026, was
between the orders dated 6th of December 2025 and 19th of December
2025. By the first order, the learned Single Judge, having the regular
assignment, ordered notice but directed that, until further orders, there
shall be no construction on the plot in question. By the second order
dated 19th December 2025, another learned Single Judge, before
whom the matter came up because the learned Judge who passed
the order dated 6th of December 2025 was on leave, vacated the
interim order restraining construction on the said plot and held that the
respondent nos.3 and 4 "shall continue to make construction on the
plot in question and the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are permitted to
start the construction of the work till further order of the Court."
9. Mr R.N. Sahay, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4, submitted that the first order dated
6 December 2025 was only an ad-interim order made without notice
to the opposite party. In our opinion, however, both orders were ad
interim. The second order does not touch the prima facie merits. It
only vacated the first order because the first order was made ex parte.
10. The second order, made when the learned Single Judge who
made the first order was on leave on that day, only states that the 3rd
and 4th respondents shall continue the construction until further orders
of the Court.
11. In any event, we do not think that the two orders, which are
purely ad-interim arrangements made until regular Bench would
resume and take up the issue of interim relief, could be said to be
conflicting and, therefore, necessitating consideration by the Division
Bench of this Court.
12. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter may
be restored to the learned Single Judge, as the matter pertains to the
assignment of the learned Single Judge. Such a course, in our
opinion, would be appropriate because it would not deprive the parties
of a right to appeal and a forum. The appeal forum would also benefit
from a reasoned order made after considering the rival claims,
pleadings, and documents.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted
that directions may be issued, or at least a request made, for the
expeditious disposal of either the petition itself or the application for
interim relief. They submitted that any restraint on the construction
would severely prejudice the respondents, because the construction
in question, apart from being consistent with validly issued
permissions, was undertaken after obtaining finances from banks and
financial institutions.
14. Mr Sahay submitted that the petition was not maintainable for
various reasons, including, but not limited to, the availability of
alternative remedies to the petitioner.
15. Mr. Gadodia, whilst not objecting to any direction for the
expeditious disposal of the petition or the application for interim relief,
contested the remaining submissions. He submitted that the
petitioners have no other alternative or efficacious remedy other than
instituting the writ petition. He submitted that this was a case of fraud
in the issuance of permissions and that the construction was being
carried out on the designated open space/common area. He
submitted that such construction far exceeds the permissible FAR,
and that the petitioners will be able to demonstrate this before the
learned Single Judge. He also sought to rely on the reports of the
Municipal Engineers/Junior Engineers/Town Planners, etc., to submit
that the constructions were patently illegal and unauthorised.
16. At this stage, since the matter is to be returned to the learned
Single Judge, it is not for this Court to adjudicate on or even comment
on the rival contentions. All contentions, including that of
maintainability, fraud and other contentions, are explicitly left open to
be decided by the learned Single Judge on their own merits and in
accordance with the law.
17. None of the observations in this order or the order made on
29.01.2026 or the two ad-interim orders needs to influence the
learned Single Judge in deciding the petition or the application for
interim relief in accordance with law and on their own merits.
Therefore, once again, we clarify that all contentions of the parties
remain open to decision by the learned Single Judge in accordance
with law, on their own merits.
18. Accordingly, we remit this matter to the learned Single Judge
having the roster to decide such matters, with a request that the
petition itself be disposed of expeditiously or the prayer for interim
relief be heard and decided expeditiously. This is because until the
prayer for interim relief is decided by the learned Single Judge, the
arrangement reflected in our order dated 29.01.2026 shall continue
given the statement now made by the learned counsel for the Ranchi
Municipal Corporation that no construction would be allowed at the
site until the petitioner's prayer for interim relief vide I.A. No. 531 of
2026 is disposed of by the learned Single Judge.
19. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge
having the roster assignment, again with a request to consider either
disposing of the petition itself or to dispose of the petitioners' prayer
for interim relief, as expeditiously as possible.
20. The learned counsels for the parties have assured this Court
that they would co-operate with the learned Single Judge in the
expeditious disposal. The ad-interim arrangement in terms of the
order dated 29.01.2026 and based upon the statement of the learned
counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation shall continue until the
prayer for interim relief is considered and disposed of on its merits and
in accordance with the law.
21. The parties/learned counsels for the parties may now appear
before the learned Single Judge on the 25th of February 2026 at 10:30
a.m.
22. The Registry is to list this matter on the said date before the
assignment or roster Bench.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
February 17, 2026
Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.1
