Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 2347 of 2012
----
Bar Association, Jharkhand High Court Petitioner Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mithilesh Singh For the Respondents : J.C to A.G Order No. 04 ------ Dated 10th July, 2012 Learned Advocate General is not available today. Since the matter requires urgent consideration but because of non-availability of the Advocate General, the matter is adjourned. The State is directed to find out the solution amicably directly with the persons who are claiming their any right or the compensation and that effort may be made by the State seriously otherwise this Court will fix time limit for taking decision and this negotiation may be completed directly with the persons who are agitating and having or claiming their right or the compensation.
Put up this case on 16th July, 2012. Copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the State today itself.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 3197 of 2012
----
Suresh Oraon ... ... Petitioner Vs.
The Union of India & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal For the UOI : J.C to ASGI For the CCL : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta Order No. 04 ------ Dated 10th July, 2012 Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to look into the matter immediately because it has been alleged that due to the blastings etc. properties of the residents is being damaged and one of the photographs has been attached.
Name of learned counsel for the respondents may be appeared in the 'Cause List'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may supply copy of complete set to the learned counsel for the respondents.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 245 of 2008
----
M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi ... ... Appellant Vs.
Their Workmen represented by Engineering Mazdor Panchayat Union, Ranchi & Anr. .Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan For the Respondents : Mr. Babban Lal, Sr. Adv., Mr. C.S. Pandey Order No. 17 ------ Dated 10th July, 2012 Learned counsel for the appellant sought time and is granted two weeks' time.
Put up this case on 24th July, 2012.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 354 of 1998(R)
----
Bachwa Devi ... ... Appellant Vs.
The Member, Board of Revenue & Ors. .Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellant : None
------ Dated 10th July, 2012 On 16.04.2012 nobody appeared.
Today also nobody appeared.
Hence, this L.P.A is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.C. (D.B.) No. 1 of 2012
----
Rev. Basant Kumar Barla ... ... Appellant Vs.
Sri Siya Saran Prasad & Ors. . Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Raj Order No. 05 ------ Dated 10th July, 2012 Office has raised objection that in view of order dated 28.08.2007 passed in A.C.(D.B.) 1 of 2007, this appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not maintainable.
Perused the order dated 28.08.2007 passed in A.C.
(D.B.) No. 1 of 2007 and in view of the said order this A.C.(D.B.) is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 2663 of 2011
----
Vishal Kumar ... ... Petitioner Vs.
The Union of India & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Pandey, Manish Kumar Order No. 09 ------ Dated 10th July, 2012 The State Pollution Control Board has submitted its supplementary counter affidavit stating therein that there are altogether 105 Bee-Hive Hard Coke plants in Dhanbad, out of which 92 plants have installed Air Pollution Control Devices and 88 units have been issued Consent to Operate order by State Pollution Control Board after verification of Air Pollution Control Devices and as per report submitted by Regional Officer, Dhanbad. Four units are fully closed since long time and remaining nine units have not installed any Air Pollution Control Devices. Three, out of this nine units have been issued issued directions under Section 33A and 31 A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 respectively for closure by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. It is submitted that in pursuance of directions, notices have been given to the units named in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that thought it is submitted that out of 105 units 92 units have installed Air Pollution Control Devices. But according to him in fact even after such submission of Pollution Control Board, the emission level which was to the limit of 150 mg/Nm3 which has been reduced to 100 mg/Nm3 is not being maintained. Therefore, direction may be given to the Pollution Control Board for surprise inspection and to submit a report with respect to emissions by these units, including for 92 units, for which, it is stated that they have already installed Air Pollution Control Devices and also for 88 units, for which, it has been stated that permission was granted after verification by the Air Pollution Control Board and as per report submitted by Regional Officer, Dhanbad.
The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is just and proper, therefore, the Pollution Control Board is directed to submit a report after surprise inspection of units with respect to the emission made by these units and to show specifically the level of emission; whether it is below 100 mg/Nm3 or below 150 mg/Nm3 or above 150 mg/Nm3 . The report will be submitted by or before 29th August, 2012.
Put up this case on 29th August, 2012. Copies may be given to learned counsel for the parties.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 19 of 2011
----
M/s Tolaram Overseas Corporation... Petitioner Vs.
M/s Jascolampf & Ors. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand
------ Dated 10th July, 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in this review petition particularly in view of the fact that even in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2011____ has been taken note of wherein learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner was required to deposit the entire amount of 60 MT of T.N. Shellac by 30th June, 2010.
Be that as it may be, the L.P.A against the order wherein specifically relief has been ___________ the L.P.A has been dismissed by this Court.
Not only on the ground that appellant was required to deposit the entire amount but the Division Bench also observed that the appellant is advised to approach the Civil Court since the remedy lies before the Civil Court.
Therefore, we do not any merit in this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.
(Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy , J) Alankar/-