[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Lucky Rice Mill (P) Ltd. Of Morangi ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 16 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 795 of 2015
---
Lucky Rice Mill (P) Ltd. of Morangi (Demotand), Hazaribag through
its Director Sri Gopal Narayan Das ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2015
---
Hazaribagh Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Hazaribagh through its Director Sri
Vijay Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 762 of 2015
---
Ganpati Rice Plant (P) Ltd. of Demotand, Hazairbag, through its
Director Sri Arun Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
---
Sankat Mochan Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Hazaribagh, through its Director
Sri Anjani Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
---
Lucky Rice Mill (P) Ltd. of Morangi (Demotand), Hazaribag through
its Director Sri Gopal Narayan Das ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
---
Ganpati Rice Plant (P) Ltd. of Demotand, Hazairbag, through its
Director Sri Arun Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
With
---
Aditya Rice Mill (P) Ltd., Hazaribag, through its Director Sri
Shailendra Kumar Gupta ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. K.C. Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II
Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.-V
Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar, A.C. to S.C.-V
Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-III
Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV
For the Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No. 796 of 2015]
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No. 1343 of 2015]
M/s Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Sahibjot Singh &
Mayank Mridul, Advocates
[in W.P.(C) No. 1370 of 2015]
-----
Order No. 24 Dated: 16.01.2026
Reference may be made to the orders dated 10.02.2020 and
04.02.2021 which read as under:
"10.02.2020
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent are in agreement that the subject matter
of this writ petition is subjudice before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
In that view of the matter, these writ petitions
are adjourned sine die.
The learned counsel appearing for the paties are
at liberty to mention it after disposal of the said SLP
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
04.02.2021
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By order dated 10th February, 2020, all these
matters were adjourned sine die, in view of the
admitted position by the learned counsels that S.L.P.
was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which,
the subject matter of these writ applications, i.e., in
absence of any clause for recovery of dues through
certificate proceedings, the recovery of dues could
not be done through that process, was sub-judice
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Those S.L.Ps. are
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17519 of 2016, 17696 of 2016 and
S.L.A.(C) No. 16909 of 2016.
By order dated 15.7.2016, passed in aforesaid
matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an
ad-interim order of stay of coercive steps for
recovery of the dues.
Though, these matters were adjourned sine die
till the disposal of the S.L.Ps., which are pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but the necessity
of brining these matters have arisen, due to the news
item, in the newspapers, which has been brought on
record by way of supplementary affidavit, filed in I.A.
No. 6178 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 795 of 2015,
wherein it is mentioned that for realization of the
dues from the rice mills, warrants have been issued
against them. I.A. No. 6178 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.
1509 of 2015, I.A. No. 6177 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.
762 of 2015 and I.A. No. 6175 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.
796 of 2015, have been filed with a prayer that
similar protection be given to petitioners as well.
Though, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the State that no cognizance of this news
item could be taken as the orders, issuing the
warrants have not been brought on record, but the
fact remains that there is an ad-interim order, passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar matter,
staying the coercive steps for recovery of the dues,
on the same issues, which are involved in these writ
applications.
In that view of the matter, a case is made out for
similar protection in these writ applications also.
Accordingly, it is directed that till the disposal of
S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17519 of 2016, 17696 of 2016 and
S.L.A.(C) No. 16909 of 2016, no coercive step shall be
taken against the petitioners for realization of the
dues in these writ applications.
The I.A. No. 6178 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 795 of
2015, I.A. No. 6176 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 1509 of
2015, I.A. No. 6177 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 762 of
2015 and I.A. No. 6175 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 796 of
2015 are allowed.
Put up the writ applications, as directed by the
order dated 10th February, 2020, passed by this
Hon'ble Court."
2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State-
respondents in respective writ petitions jointly submit that the
aforesaid S.L.Ps., which subsequently got converted into Civil Appeal
No. 1889 of 2023 and other analogous cases, have been dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18.12.2024 and
as such, in view of the said development, the interim order dated
04.02.2021 may be vacated.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering
the observation made in the order dated 04.02.2021 that in similar
matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the coercive steps
which were being taken for recovery of the dues against the said
appellants, had also directed for not taking any coercive steps
against the petitioners for realization of the dues till the disposal of
the said SLPs, which have now been dismissed, the interim order
dated 04.02.2021 passed in the present batch of cases is hereby
vacated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for three weeks'
time to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record certain more
documents which according to him could not be filed earlier due to
inadvertence.
5. Considering the said prayer, put up these cases under the
heading "For Admission" after three weeks.
I.A. No. 1983 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 795 of 2025, I.A. No.
1981 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2015, I.A. No. 1984 of
2015 in W.P.(C) No. 762 of 2015, I.A. No. 1982 of 2015 &
I.A. No. 2595 of 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 796 of 2015, I.A. No.
10178 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 1343 of 2015 and I.A. No.
10185 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 1370 of 2015
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present
interlocutory applications have now been rendered infructuous.
7. Considering the said submission, the present interlocutory
applications stand disposed of as infructuous.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
January 16, 2026
Ritesh/
