IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 1076 of 2011
Court On Its Own Motion Versus State of Jharkhand & Others
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr.I. Sinha, Amicus Curiae
For the RespondentRRDA : Mr. A.K.Singh
For the RespondentState : Mr. R.R. Mishra, G.P.
For the RespondentRMC : M/s. R.R.Nath, L.C.N.Shahdeo
For the RespondentChamber
of Commerce : Mr. Pandey Niraj Roy
For the Intervenors : Mr. M.K.Dey, Sr. Advocate
For the Intervenors
(I.A. No. 1037 of 2011) : Mr. D.K. Chakraborty
Mr. Sohail Anwer, Sr.Advocate
For M/s Premsons : Ms. A.R.Choudahry
For the Respondent BSL : Mr. Anand Sen
08/ 01.04.2011 Learned G.P appearing for the State informs this Court that
apart from four cities and the city of Ranchi indicated by this Court in the
first order, they have taken steps to get the entire State encroachment
free and for this matter, instructions have been issued to all the Deputy
Commissioners of all the Districts.
This effort is appreciated, but what is required is follow up
action. If the instructions are followed, then only the appreciation
recorded hereinabove will have its meaning; otherwise this will only be
lip service on the part of the State, if the encroachments in other parts of
the State are not removed.
The affidavit filed today by the Bokaro Steel Limited is not
only not satisfactory, but it shows a tacit colour of nonperformance
where it says that only after the removal of encroachment mentioned in
Paragraph 7, Paragraph8 will be addressed. This attempt is clearly
discriminatory as submitted by Mr. Sohail Anwer and it is a good gesture
on the part of Mr. Sohail Anwer, who is representing one of the clients
and he has volunteered to remove his encroachment.
The State Government and the Bokaro Steel Plant are not
only slow but are articulating their submissions before this Court in such
a design that the B.S.L is removing the encroachments, but in fact, they
are not removing. This situation and the affidavit of B.S.L are not
satisfactory. Hence, the affidavit filed by the B.S.L is not accepted as
compliance of the order of this Court.
The State Government and the B.S.L should come out clean.
If the stand of the authorities continue to be what it is today, then they
will be ordered to be proceeded for contempt on the next date of
hearing.
The State was required to file a detailed compliance report
of the earlier order. That be done by next date of hearing.
There is allegation coming out against the officers of the
B.S.L. that they have distributed lands to their near and dear. This is one
of the reasons that to camouflage the nonperformance, they are raising
the plea of non assistance by the State. It is being said that they have not
been able to remove the encroachments because the State is not helping
them.
Learned G.P. appearing for the State submitted before this
Court that as and when B.S.L officers ask for assistance, instant help will
be available by the State.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid assurance from the State
Government, refusal to remove encroachments in the garb of non
assistance by the State Government cannot be appreciated. The
allegation that the land has been distributed by the officer to their near
and dear would be available to be inferred, and as aforesaid, proceedings
will be initiated against the officers of Bokaro Steel Limited.
Put up on 19.04.2011.
I. A. No. 1037 of 2011 filed for intervention, in this matter,
is rejected.
(Bhagwati Prasad, C.J)
(D.N. Patel, J)
Dey/S.I.