{"id":105825,"date":"2011-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-06-23T01:17:43","modified_gmt":"2017-06-22T19:47:43","slug":"ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
\n                   W.P.(C) No. 2687 of 2011
\n                                With
\n                   W.P.(C) No. 2688 of 2011
\n                                With
\n                   W.P.(C) No. 1932 of 2011
\n        M\/s R.G.’S Fashions Private Limited ……           Petitioner
\n                                                             (In W.P.(C) No. 2687\/2011).<\/p>\n
        Manoj Goyal & another                  ......        Petitioners\n                                                             (In W.P.(C) No. 2688\/2011).\n        Deva Prasad Chakraborty & Others ......              Petitioners\n                                                             (In W.P.(C) No. 1932\/2011).\n                                       Versus\n        The State of Jharkhand & others ....                 Respondents\n                                                             ( in all the cases).\nCORAM: -      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV\n\n        For the Petitioners            : Mr. P.K. Prasad, Sr. Advocate ,\n                                        Mr. N.K. Pasari, Mr. Shailesh, Advocates\n        For the Respondents State      : Mr. R.R. Mishra, G.P.II\n        For the Zila Parishad          : Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate\n        For the Intervenor             : Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocae\n\n                   Reserved on 14.06.2011               Delivered on 11th \/July\/2011\n\n<\/pre>\n
05\/ 11th \/07.2011: Common controversy has been raised by the petitioners in three<\/p>\n
        connected writ petitions, as such, all the writ petitions were decided by a<\/p>\n
        common judgment. Leading case is W.P.C. No. 2687 of 2011 (M\/s R.G.’s<\/p>\n
        Fashion Private Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others). Counter<\/p>\n
        affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Zila Parishad, rejoinder to the said<\/p>\n
        counter affidavit is also on record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder are being<\/p>\n
        read in all three connected cases and common arguments have been<\/p>\n
        advanced on behalf of all the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
        2.          An application on behalf of Suresh Prasad, son of late Bilar Ram,<\/p>\n
        resident of Baludih, as intervenor for being arrayed him as one of the<\/p>\n
        respondents was moved. The ground for intervention is that he had filed one<\/p>\n
        Public Interest Litigation W.P.(PIL) No. 5926 of 2009 against Dhanbad Zila<\/p>\n
        Parishad for removal of unauthorized occupants from the land illegally<\/p>\n
        occupied in connivance with the authorities of Dhanbad Zila Parishad.
\n Application on behalf of the Intervenor was rejected on 14.6.2011 for the<\/p>\n
reasons that the process for removal of unauthorized occupants has already<\/p>\n
been initiated at the instance of Zila Parishad and it is being contested on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Zila Parishad, therefore, the intervenor is not a necessary party.<\/p>\n
3.          The instant writ petitions were filed challenging action of the Zila<\/p>\n
Parishad, whereby respective commercial premises of the petitioner situated<\/p>\n
at Central Plaza Bank More, Dhanbad was sealed without there being any<\/p>\n
order passed by a competent Court of law and in violation of the procedure<\/p>\n
of law and statutory provisions. The prayer of the petitioners is for a direction<\/p>\n
in the nature of mandamus to remove the seals affixed in relation to their<\/p>\n
respective unit\/ shop, wherein business was being carried out. The petitioner<\/p>\n
of the leading case claimed that his shop runs in the name of CITI Style at<\/p>\n
Central Plaza and deals with ready made garments. Claim of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that he is in occupation of the shop under lease agreement and he is<\/p>\n
conducting his business in the capacity of a tenant. The garment business<\/p>\n
has a retail chain stores through out the country and he runs a business after<\/p>\n
grant of a valid and legal license\/ permission obtained from the State<\/p>\n
Government and the petitioner is duly registered with the Commercial Taxes<\/p>\n
Department at Dhanbad and pays approximately Rs. 40,00,000\/- (Forty<\/p>\n
lakhs) per annum as tax to the State of Jharkhand. The lease agreement was<\/p>\n
entered into in the year 2006 with the building owners, who it is alleged,<\/p>\n
were in peaceful possession since last 7 decades in terms of settlement of<\/p>\n
the land in the name of Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak by means of a registered<\/p>\n
deed being Patta no. 1755 dated 16th April 1934 said to have been executed<\/p>\n
by the then Chairman of the District Board, Manbhum. The land owners<\/p>\n
purchased the land from M\/s H.W. Builders Ltd. by means of a registered sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 21st April 1998, who in his turn, is said to have come in<\/p>\n
possession of the land from the Benamidar of Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak.<\/p>\n
The land was developed in terms of the sanction plan issued by the<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer, Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA), Dhanbad.
\n After execution of the lease agreement the petitioner is said to have made<\/p>\n
substantial investment in opening the commercial outlets.<\/p>\n
4.         The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the order dated<\/p>\n
25th January 2011 and 25th March 2011 in W.P.(PIL) No. 6141 of 2008<\/p>\n
(Annexure-1) in the leading writ petition was passed with regard to removal<\/p>\n
of the various encroached land within the State of Jharkhand in W.P.(PIL) No.<\/p>\n
6141 of 2008. However, the said order passed by this Court was not in<\/p>\n
relation to the property where already litigation is pending before a Court of<\/p>\n
competent jurisdiction. Mr. P.K. Prasad, Sr. Counsel has placed the order<\/p>\n
dated 25th January 2011 and 25th March 2011 in support his argument that<\/p>\n
these orders were passed with a view to remove encroachment. The Court<\/p>\n
has expressed its resentment that the State Police is active alone, whereas<\/p>\n
the Municipal authorities such as Ranchi Municipal Corporation and Ranchi<\/p>\n
Regional Development Authority have primary responsibility of removing<\/p>\n
encroachments. The order of the Division Bench was unequivocal that such<\/p>\n
constructions, which are in violation of the sanction map will immediately be<\/p>\n
notified and such encroachers will be put on notice of 12-24 hours to remove<\/p>\n
the encroachments suo motu or otherwise authorities will take notice. I.A.<\/p>\n
No. 971 of 2011 in W.P.(PIL) 1872 of 2010 along with certain other writ<\/p>\n
petitions, which related to Public interest was moved and I.A. No. 971 of 2010<\/p>\n
was   converted    into   contempt   petition   and   Deputy    Development<\/p>\n
Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dhanbad was<\/p>\n
issued a show cause notice as to why contempt proceeding be not initiated<\/p>\n
against him for disobeying the order dated 9.9.2010 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.<\/p>\n
5926 of 2009 and also why an order of punishment for wilful disobedience be<\/p>\n
not passed, since no steps for getting the premises vacated were taken.<\/p>\n
5.    On perusal of the record it transpires that Annexure-2 to the writ<\/p>\n
petition is an order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5244 of 2005 connected with W.P.<\/p>\n
(C) No. 5918 of 2005. These writ petitions related to challenge of a letter<\/p>\n
issued by Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
\n District Board, Dhanbad, whereby the land just below the over bridge on<\/p>\n
which this Central Plaza complex is situated was claimed to be an<\/p>\n
encroachment by the occupants and, therefore, the intention of the District<\/p>\n
Board to remove the said construction was challenged. Two writ petitions<\/p>\n
were filed by Deba Prasad Chakraborty and Shrimati Bimla Devi and others.<\/p>\n
Petitioners in the said writ petitions challenged that one Prabhulal Pranjiwan<\/p>\n
Pathak was the joint Benamidar with Kripa shankar Worah and Sri Narveram<\/p>\n
G. Chandani and the land was settled by means of registered deed. The<\/p>\n
dispute in respect of which settlement was made was a part of land<\/p>\n
appertaining to khata no. 165, plot no. 266, mouza no. 51, P.S. And District<\/p>\n
Dhanbad, having an area of 4 Bigha, 27 Katha and 27 Sq. ft.. Challenge was<\/p>\n
also in respect of an order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer dated 10 th<\/p>\n
August 2005, which was impugned in the said writ petitions. The two writ<\/p>\n
petitions were disposed of and the interim order granted was vacated<\/p>\n
holding that there is nothing on record to suggest that Prabhulal Pranjiwan<\/p>\n
Pathak was the joint Benamidar of Kripa Shankar Worah, Hari Shankar Worah<\/p>\n
and Sri Narveram G. Chandani and, therefore,        prima facie the petitioners<\/p>\n
have not been able to establish their right and title over the land in question.<\/p>\n
6.          Pursuant to the orders passed in Public Interest Litigation cases<\/p>\n
all relating to the encroachment removal drive and also order passed in the<\/p>\n
I.A. No. 971 of 2011, which was treated as a contempt petition, a general<\/p>\n
notice was published in the daily news paper detailing the public buildings<\/p>\n
and structure, which were termed to be illegal structure including the one in<\/p>\n
occupation of the present petitioners, who have their shops at Central Plaza<\/p>\n
Buildings,which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The premises<\/p>\n
were sealed which is challenged in all these petitions.<\/p>\n
7.          The grievance of the respective counsels of the shop owners on<\/p>\n
behalf of of Central Plaza building is that the places where they were carrying<\/p>\n
on their business, was the only source of their livelihood and they were not<\/p>\n
given individual notice, though they were running the shop on the basis of a
\n lease deed between actual owner of the land and the petitioners. Therefore,<\/p>\n
their occupation was neither illegal nor could be termed to be encroachment<\/p>\n
of public land and, thus, the sealing of their shops has been challenged being<\/p>\n
unconstitutional and against the principle of natural justice for want of<\/p>\n
individual notice to the shop owners. It is also argued on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioners that assuming their occupation was illegal, even then the<\/p>\n
respondents should have taken recourse to oust them after adopting the<\/p>\n
procedure of law and not in highhanded manner without any notice or<\/p>\n
opportunity as it has been done in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
8.          Supplementary affidavit has also been filed brining on record<\/p>\n
lease deed entered into between M\/s Chakraborty & Sen Enterprises, a<\/p>\n
partnership firm having its Principal Office at Central Plaza and the petitioner<\/p>\n
M\/s R.G.’S Fasion Pvt. Limited for a total area 7290 Sq. Ft. of the Lower<\/p>\n
Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor of the building<\/p>\n
situated at Bank More, Dhanbad. Another supplementary has been filed to<\/p>\n
bring on record order passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 5926 of 2009 (Suresh Prasad<\/p>\n
Versus The State of Jharkhand & others). The writ petition was disposed of by<\/p>\n
a Division Bench on 9.9.2010.\n<\/p>\n
9.          The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition was in<\/p>\n
respect of more than 100 properties of Dhanbad Zila Parishad which were<\/p>\n
occupied by the government officials illegally, who have allegedly wild power<\/p>\n
in the political circles including the trade union leaders. The Chief Executive<\/p>\n
Officer gave undertaking before the Court in the said writ petition that<\/p>\n
allotments of those unauthorized occupants shall be cancelled by 11.09.2010<\/p>\n
and the State Government also extended its assurance to give assistance to<\/p>\n
the Chief Executive Officer to get the properties vacated very soon.<\/p>\n
10.         Submission of the learned counsel is that Zila Parishad has acted<\/p>\n
only on account of undertaking and assurance given on behalf of the State<\/p>\n
and local bodies before the High Court and in compliance of its order. Thus<\/p>\n
their removal is neither illegal nor opposed to principle and procedure of law.\n<\/p>\n
 11.         Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.<\/p>\n
4 to 6. At the very out set preliminary objection raised is that the lessor of<\/p>\n
the petitioners have not been made parties and they have not come forward<\/p>\n
to support the lessee, therefore, lease deed cannot be accepted in support<\/p>\n
of the contention raised by the petitioners. Besides none of the lease deed is<\/p>\n
registered ,therefore, lessee cannot claim through lessor, who has allegedly<\/p>\n
purchased property from M\/s H.W. Builders Ltd.. Neither the sale deed<\/p>\n
between lessor and M\/s H.W. Builders Ltd. nor anything to substantiate that<\/p>\n
how M\/s H.W. Builders Ltd. has become owners and has any claim to the<\/p>\n
property in question is on record. Admittedly the property is in the name of<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad regarding which writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 5244 of 2005<\/p>\n
and W.P.(C) No. 5918 of 2005 were contested and orders passed in two writ<\/p>\n
petitions have attained finality. The judgments are annexed as Annexure-2<\/p>\n
to the writ petition. Therefore, unless the right of lessor is substantiated vis-<\/p>\n
a-vis Zila Parishad the right of subsequent tenancy of the respective<\/p>\n
petitioners is automatically rendered illegal. There is nothing on record to<\/p>\n
substantiate that the petitioners are valid occupants and so called ‘lease<\/p>\n
deed’ annexed with the supplementary affidavit is a sham document. The<\/p>\n
respondents have also emphatically submitted that sufficient notices were<\/p>\n
given to the lessor of the petitioners as well as the alleged owner of the<\/p>\n
Central Plaza Building. The lessee and agents had sufficient notice through<\/p>\n
the paper publication as well as individual notice as annexed along with the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit (Annexures- G, H, I\/1, J and J\/1. Therefore, contention on<\/p>\n
behalf of the petitioners that they had no knowledge about the intention of<\/p>\n
the Zila Parishad to oust them and they were taken by surprise cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
12.         I have considered the respective documents and gone through<\/p>\n
the record, it is apparent that the petitioners claimed their right through their<\/p>\n
lessor Deba Prasad Chakraborty, who has not been arrayed as a party and<\/p>\n
the only basis of their claim and assertion that their occupation is valid and
\n legal is on the basis of an unregistered deed between the petitioners and<\/p>\n
Deba Prasad Chakraborty mentioned aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
13.         I have also taken into consideration the order passed by this<\/p>\n
Court in writ petition W.P.(C) No. 5244 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 5918 of 2005<\/p>\n
which is part of the record. Deba Prasad Chakraborty, Shrimati Bimla Devi<\/p>\n
and others challenged letter no. 839 dated 31st August 2005 issued by the<\/p>\n
Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District<\/p>\n
Board, Dhanbad intimating them that they had encroached on the public<\/p>\n
land. This Court had declined to grant any relief and recorded finding that the<\/p>\n
right and title claimed by the petitioners could not be decided in a writ<\/p>\n
petition and also that the aggrieved party may move to get their claim<\/p>\n
decided by a competent authority or civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The<\/p>\n
order passed in the writ petition has also not been challenged either in L.P.A.<\/p>\n
Or before the apex Court and, therefore, it is evident that there is nothing to<\/p>\n
support and give aid to the contention of the petitioners that they are in<\/p>\n
valid occupation. So far their ouster is concerned, it is pursuant to an order of<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court, individual notices are also part of the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit. The petitioners were made aware about the proceedings through<\/p>\n
their so-called landlord, which has not been disputed as well as the paper<\/p>\n
publication is sufficient to establish that the respondents had noticed the<\/p>\n
petitioners before putting the seal or lock on the different commercial<\/p>\n
establishments. The petitioners claim, that their occupation is valid cannot<\/p>\n
be accepted and is without any substance, the only basis is a lease deed,<\/p>\n
which is an unregistered deed and cannot be taken into consideration by this<\/p>\n
Court. No doubt the petitioners were carrying on their business and the<\/p>\n
shops in question are the only source of their livelihood, but they cannot<\/p>\n
escape the fact that Zila Parishad claimed its title and all along was trying to<\/p>\n
oust the shop owners being illegal occupation. The petitioners have not taken<\/p>\n
any steps to make settlement with Zila Parishad and to get their occupancy<\/p>\n
legalized. The petitioners even did not take any step either to restrain Zila
\n Parishad or any authority but was sleeping over the matter despite the fact<\/p>\n
that writ petitions filed on behalf of lessors stood dismissed in the year 2006<\/p>\n
itself. Now at such a belated stage the act of the Zila Parishad cannot be<\/p>\n
questioned.\n<\/p>\n
14.           The Zila Parishad, Dhanbad has annexed documents to support<\/p>\n
the contention that name of the Zila Parishad is already mentioned in the<\/p>\n
existing Khatian. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is a report given<\/p>\n
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad vide memo no. 2124 dated 10th<\/p>\n
August 2005 is sufficient proof of the fact that the land in question belongs to<\/p>\n
Zila Parishad and there being no allotment of shop by Zila Parishad, the<\/p>\n
occupation of the petitioners cannot be validated.\n<\/p>\n
15.           I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of the Zila Parishad that according to section 96 of the<\/p>\n
Bihar and Orisa Local Self Government Act, 1885 (as amended vide Act I of<\/p>\n
1923, Act II of 1932 ) prior sanction of the (then) Local Self Government was<\/p>\n
essential for any transfer or settlement of any immovable property placed by<\/p>\n
the Local Government under the control and administration of the District<\/p>\n
Board. Evidently the claim of the petitioners that there was a registered<\/p>\n
settlement dated 16th April 1934 in the name of Prabhulal Pranjiwan Pathak<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted, since there was neither any prior approval of the then<\/p>\n
Local Self Government nor it was made in the name of the then Governor\/<\/p>\n
Government. Therefore, the petitioners or their alleged lessor gains no right<\/p>\n
even if he has purchased the land from the M\/s H.W. Builders Ltd. , who in<\/p>\n
turn was not authorized to do so.\n<\/p>\n
16.           Besides, there is nothing on record to show that Kripa Shanakar<\/p>\n
Worah and others were Benamidar, specially at present such a benami<\/p>\n
transaction has no legal sanctity and, therefore, all subsequent deeds are<\/p>\n
rendered meaningless.\n<\/p>\n
17.           Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on a number of decisions to substantiate his argument that
\n an occupant in possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse to law.<\/p>\n
In Krishna Ram Mahale Vrs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1998) 4<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 131. It was held that where a person who was in<\/p>\n
settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right<\/p>\n
to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the<\/p>\n
property except by recourse to law. The preposition of privy council in<\/p>\n
another case that “In India persons are not permitted to take forcible<\/p>\n
possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through<\/p>\n
a Court” was followed by the apex Court. Similar view was expressed in case<\/p>\n
of Pratp Rai N. Kothari Versus John Braganza (1999) 4 Supreme<\/p>\n
Court Cases 403. This citation is also on the question of possessory title. It<\/p>\n
is a principle of law that a person who has been in long continuous<\/p>\n
possession of an immovable property can protect the same by seeking an<\/p>\n
injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. Another<\/p>\n
decision in the case of Rame Gowda Versus M. Varadappa Naidu and<\/p>\n
another, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 769, which deals with the<\/p>\n
question of occupant in “settled possession” lay down the principle that he<\/p>\n
cannot be ousted without recourse to law . Another decision cited by learned<\/p>\n
counsel in M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India and others , (2009) 16<\/p>\n
Supreme Court Cases 535 and Meghmala and others Versus G.<\/p>\n
Narasimha Reddy and others (2010) 8 Supreme Court cases 383. In<\/p>\n
this case illegal forcible eviction from land even by Government by an<\/p>\n
executive order was held not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
18.        The citations relied upon by learned counsel on behalf of the<\/p>\n
petitioners are absolutely correct and I am in full agreement that no<\/p>\n
occupant even if he is unauthorized can be evicted without following the<\/p>\n
procedure of law, but in the present writ petitions it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
proper procedure has not been followed. The owner is a local body i.e. Zila<\/p>\n
Parishad and it is custodian of the public property. Zila Parishad all along on<\/p>\n
several occasions issued notices to the lessors of the petitioners and also
\n          adjudication by this Court in two previous writ petitions rejecting the claim of<\/p>\n
         the petitioners, namely, Deba Prasad Chakraborty and Shrimati Bimla Devi<\/p>\n
         and others cannot be overlooked. No further steps have been taken either by<\/p>\n
         the lessor or occupants to validate their claim. Settlement as claimed by the<\/p>\n
         petitioners pertaining to the year 1934 with co-Benamidar is absaolutely<\/p>\n
         frivolous, besides the settlement was invalid. Thereafter the seal was affixed<\/p>\n
         by respondents on the shops only after an order and direction of the High<\/p>\n
         Court was issued in PIL. Notices were also published in the news<\/p>\n
         paper,admittedly notices by publication is accepted in law. Therefore,<\/p>\n
         contention of the petitioners that the seal has been affixed without following<\/p>\n
         procedure of law and in a highhanded manner is not correct. The act of Zila<\/p>\n
         Parishad cannot be held to be unconstitutional specially when the petitioners<\/p>\n
         were sleeping over the matter.\n<\/p>\n
         19.         In the circumstances the decisions relied upon by learned counsel<\/p>\n
         has no applicability in the instant cases specially in all these citations<\/p>\n
         referred to above by the learned counsel the contesting party was a private<\/p>\n
         owner and it was not a case where there were a number of occupants<\/p>\n
         occupying a chunk of public property. Thus, the petitioners’ contention is<\/p>\n
         liable to be rejected. Zila Parishad had no other option but to take stringent<\/p>\n
         action against the occupants such as the petitioners specially in view of<\/p>\n
         specific direction by the highest Court of the State. I am of the view that<\/p>\n
         there is no merit in this writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
         20.         In the facts and circumstances what has been stated above, all<\/p>\n
         the three writ petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (POONAM SRIVASTAV, J)<\/p>\n
Sharma\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court M\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2687 of 2011 With W.P.(C) No. 2688 of 2011 With W.P.(C) No. 1932 of 2011 M\/s R.G.’S Fashions Private Limited …… Petitioner (In W.P.(C) No. 2687\/2011). Manoj […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3366,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011"},"wordCount":3366,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011","name":"M\/S R.G.'S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-22T19:47:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-r-g-s-fashions-private-li-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S R.G.’S Fashions Private Li vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 11 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}