M/S. Indian Drug Manufacturers ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 665 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

M/S. Indian Drug Manufacturers ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P. (C) No. 1332 of 2019
            M/s. Indian Drug Manufacturers Association, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
            & Others                                       ..... Petitioners
                                           Versus
            The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Labour
            Employment and Training Department, Ranchi & Others
                                                             ..... Respondents
                                             -----

CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners: Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to S.C.-IV

-----

08/03.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. An issue has arisen whether this writ petition would pertain to the

assignment of the Division Bench or the Single Bench.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially this writ

petition was filed before learned Single Judge. By order dated

12.02.2024, the learned Single Judge has held that the same would

pertain to the assignment of the Division Bench as per the roster.

Learned Single Judge has assigned the reason that the challenge in

this writ petition is to the notification dated 13.09.2011, which is

ultra vires the provisions of Section 12 of the Sales Promotion

Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 and Section 13(1)(a)

of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Acts, 1976 & 1948 respectively').

4. Rule 34 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 provides that

all writ petitions where vires or validity of an Act or of Legislature

or any subordinate legislation is under challenge, such writ

petitions may be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench.

5. In this Case, admittedly, neither the vires or validity of any State or

Central Act nor any subordinate legislation is under challenge. The

challenge is only to a notification issued in the purported exercise

of powers conferred by the Acts, 1976 & 1948 respectively. The

impugned notification is only an executive order issued in the

purported exercise of powers conferred by the Acts, 1976 & 1948

respectively. Such a petition therefore would not pertain to the

assignment of the Division Bench. Accordingly, we direct that this

writ petition be placed before appropriate Single Bench as per the

present roster.

6. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to mention this matter since

some urgency is expressed and it has been further pointed out that

the issue involved is covered by a decision of the Patna High Court

in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9237 of 2017.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 03.02.2026 Satish/Vikas/