IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1824 of 2004
with
W.P. (S) No. 2075 of 2004
Gurwari Kui ... ... Petitioner [In W.P.(S) No. 1824/2004]
1. Anand Lal Mahato
2. Narad Chandra Mahato
3. Shraban Mahato
4. Phani Bhushan Gope ... ... Petitioners [In W.P.(S) No. 2075/2004]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi
3. Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi
4. Administrator, Subarnarekha Project,
East Singhbhum ... ... ...Respondents [In both the cases]
5. Additional Director, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation,
Subarnarekha Project, East Singhbhum
6. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Subarnarekha
Project,East Singhbhum ... ... Respondents [In W.P.(S) No. 1824/2004]
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dr. H. Waris, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. D.K. Dubey, S.C. (Mines)
08/19.03.2010
Since the issues involved in both these writ applications are identical,
they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. Dispute in these writ applications has been raised by the petitioners on
account of impugned show cause notices issued to them, whereby they have
been informed that, as per the findings in the enquiry conducted by the
concerned authorities of the respondents, it was found that the appointment of
the present petitioners was made illegally by the concerned officers of the
department under the scheme of Displaced Persons of the Swarnarekha
Multipurpose Project.
4. As appearing from the impugned notice, it appears that the petitioners
have been informed about the result of the preliminary enquiry and they have
also been called upon to submit their show cause replies as to why the
contemplated action of terminating their services should not be passed against
them.
5. As it appears, the petitioners instead of filing their show cause replies or
if they have already filed, in stead of waiting for a reply or the final decision of
the respondents on the same, have rushed to this Court by filing these writ
applications.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, these writ applications
are disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the
respondents to take an appropriate decision on the show cause replies filed by
the petitioners, and to intimate them about the decisions so taken, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
7. With these observations, these writ applications are disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Manish