High Court Jharkhand High Court

Raj Deep Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 25 April, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Raj Deep Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 25 April, 2011
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                W. P. (C) No. 1619 of 2011
                              ---
          Raj Deep Singh                             ...      ...      Petitioner
                                  Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand
          2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
          3. The Certificate Officer, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
          4. The District Mining Officer, Ranchi     ...      ...      Respondents
                              ---
          CORAM         : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
                              ---
           For the Petitioner     : Mr. K. K. Ojha, Advocate
           For the Respondents    : Mr. Saurav Arun, J. C. to A. G.
                              ---
2. 25.04.2011

: Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner has been suffering from mental
illness from 2003 and was under treatment of RINPAS, Ranchi and
due to frequent attack of his insanity he could not take steps for
denying the liabilities imposed against him though the very foundation
of the alleged demand was not based on accuracy. He therefore,
submitted that a chance may be given to the petitioner to file objection
under Section 9 of the PDR Act.

On the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that this certificate case was filed
way back in 2002-03; and that on such grounds no interference should
be made.

According to the petitioner some other person was found
working the stone mine, and therefore, he was/is not liable to pay. But,
it appears that after hearing the petitioner, and considering his case,
his stone mining lease was terminated on 10.04.2003 for non payment
of dues and violation of the terms of lease. Then the certificate case
was filed way back in 2003 for realisation of such dues. The petitioner
has not said that no notice was served on him. What he is saying is
that due to mental illness, he could not take steps in the said case. On
such vague and general ground, the delay of about seven years, can
not be condoned. It appears that petitioner has deliberately delayed
the payment of dues.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.
However, no costs.

(R. K. Merathia, J.)