The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), affirming that electricity theft assessments must align with the formulas officially gazetted by the State Regulatory Commission.

​The case originated from a May 2008 inspection at M/s Sri Durga Cement Co. Ltd., where JSEB officials found tampered seals and alleged electricity theft. An initial assessment of approximately ₹62.17 lakh was challenged by the consumer. The Appellate Authority subsequently modified this assessment, doubling the units consumed but applying the standard tariff of ₹4 per unit.

​JSEB challenged the modification, arguing that under Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the assessment should have been calculated at twice the tariff rate (₹8 per unit) rather than just doubling the units at the base rate.

​Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that while the Electricity Act provides for theft control, the specific “Supply Code” enumerating the assessment formula in Jharkhand was only published on September 1, 2010.

​The Court highlighted several key legal points:

​No Retrospective Effect: The 2010 formula cannot be applied retrospectively to a 2008 occurrence. Citing Apex Court precedent, the High Court emphasized that State Electricity Boards lack the power to frame tariffs; this remains the exclusive domain of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC). Since no official formula existed at the time of the incident, the Appellate Authority’s method of doubling the units at the prevailing tariff was deemed reasonable.

​Finding no illegality in the Appellate Authority’s order, the High Court dismissed the Board’s petition, ruling that charges can only be levied based on tariffs and formulas officially approved by the Commission.

Jharkhand State Electicity Board

187KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ashok Ram Rajak and others, affirming that the right of preemption under the Bihar Land Reforms Act cannot be claimed over land situated within a residential area, regardless of its historical classification.

​The case originated when the late Matuk Ram Rajak (the original petitioner) filed for preemption under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. He sought to override a 2007 sale of 0.312 decimals of land in Village Mahudar, Hazaribagh, from respondents 6–8 to Sangita Devi. Rajak claimed the right to purchase the land himself, asserting he was an “adjoining raiyat” (landholder).

​Initial Victory: The D.C.L.R. Hazaribagh initially allowed the preemption in 2007, viewing the land as agricultural.

​Appellate Reversal: The Additional Collector later set aside this order after a verification report from the Circle Officer confirmed the land was situated in a residential area, not an agricultural one.

​Revisional Dismissal: The Member Board of Revenue upheld the appellate decision, leading the petitioners to move the High Court in 2008.

​Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably Ramji Sharma v. State of Bihar), observed that the primary object of the Act is to put a ceiling on agricultural land. The Court noted: Mere “Bhit” (agricultural) classification in old records is not conclusive if the area has since become urbanized or residential.

The petitioners’ late-stage argument regarding alleged “interpolation” in the Circle Officer’s report was dismissed, as it was never raised during previous appeals. The Court emphasized that preemption is intended to prevent strangers from intruding into family agricultural holdings; however, this does not extend to lands transferred for non-agricultural purposes in developed areas.

​Finding no illegality in the lower authorities’ orders, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish a valid right of preemption over the residential property.

Ashok Ram Rajak And Others

118KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Doray Jonko regarding illegal encroachments on government plots (Nos. 206, 207, 208, and 209) under Khata No. 172 in Porahat, Chakradharpur. The petitioner alleged that authorities had failed to take elective action against these occupations.

​The Court’s Finding: The Sub-Divisional Officer of Chakradharpur submitted a counter-affidavit confirming that after multiple ignored notices, an eviction order was issued on May 27, 2025. Following this, the administration deployed police force and successfully cleared the encroachments on May 30, 2025, providing photographic evidence to the court.

While the petitioner claimed some encroachments persisted, the Court noted that no formal rejoinder was filed to contest the state’s evidence. The Bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Deepak Roshan, disposed of the PIL with specific mandates for the local administration.

The petitioner may file fresh complaints with the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of West Singhbhum if any illegal structures remain.

​The DC is directed to investigate such complaints and clear any remaining encroachments “as expeditiously as possible” in accordance with the law.

​The Court placed a proactive burden on the DC to ensure that cleared encroachments do not re-surface on government land.

Doray Jonko Pil

481KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a divorce plea filed by a husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion, ruling that a wife living at her parents’ house to attend to her professional duties does not constitute “willful abandonment”.

​The Case Background

​The appellant (husband), Rajkumar Paul, and the respondent (wife), Mamta Kumari, married in December 2016. The husband sought a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife pressured him to live separately from his parents and eventually deserted him in March 2018.

The wife, a Government Teacher, contended that her workplace was 75 km away from her matrimonial home, making daily commuting impossible. She argued that she lived with her parents out of professional necessity but visited during holidays and regularly transferred ₹20,000–₹25,000 of her salary to her husband’s account.

​Court’s Observations

​A division bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava noted several key factors:

Compulsion vs. Desertion: The Court held that the wife’s stay at her parental home was an “act of compulsion” due to the 75 km distance to her school and limited commuting means. The respondent’s consistent financial support to the husband—whose income was a meager ₹4,000–₹5,000 per month—indicated her willingness to maintain the marital bond rather than sever it. The husband was aware of her employment status before marriage and had initially accepted it. The wife had attempted to seek a transfer to be closer to the matrimonial home and expressed a clear desire to live with her husband and in-laws.

​The Verdict

​The Court emphasized that “cruelty” must be “grave and weighty” and more than the “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. Finding no evidence of willful desertion or cruelty, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the husband’s appeal.

Rajkumar Vs

254KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The High Court of Jharkhand has overturned the conviction of Madhab Chandra Dey, who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1993 murder of Khenubala Dasi and a subsequent robbery. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The case dates back to December 15, 1993, when informant Nand Lal Dey returned from a wedding in Rajrappa to find his home in Chas looted and his aunt, Khenubala Dasi, dead with her throat slit. Valuable gold and silver ornaments were reported missing.

​Key Findings of the Court:

• ​Hostile Witnesses: Several key seizure list witnesses, including those related to the recovery of the alleged murder weapon (a knife) and stolen money, were declared hostile or failed to support the prosecution’s claims during the trial.

• ​Doubtful Recoveries: The Court noted that the alleged recovery of ₹30,000 from the appellant’s backyard and the knife from a pond area were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses testified they only saw these items at the police station.

• ​Incomplete Chain of Circumstances: Since the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the prosecution could not bridge the gaps caused by inconsistent witness testimonies and unproven recoveries.

​Verdict

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s 1997 conviction was not based on cogent evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Madhab Chandra Dey was acquitted of all charges. The case against the co-appellant, Ludka Kandu, had already abated following his death during the pendency of the appeal.

Mahtab Chandra Repaired

423KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking custody and visitation rights for his minor son, Master Aalap Chakraborty, citing that the request violated the specific terms of a prior mutual consent divorce decree. ​The appellant, Joydeep Chakraborty, a software engineer based in Bangalore, challenged a 2024 Family Court order that denied him access to his seven-year-old son. He argued that as the biological father and natural guardian, he possessed an inherent right to meet his child.

​However, the respondent-mother, Payal Banerjee, contended that the marriage was dissolved in 2021 under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act based on mutual agreement. A key condition of that settlement was that the child would reside exclusively with the mother and that neither party would initiate further litigation against the other.

​Court’s Observations

​A division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai emphasized that in matters of custody, the “welfare of the child” is the paramount consideration, overriding the individual legal rights of parents.

​The Court highlighted several factors in its decision:

• ​Breach of Agreement: The suit was filed in direct violation of the 2021 mutual consent decree where the father had relinquished visitation rights.

• Welfare & Logistics: The father lives alone in Bangalore and works full-time, leaving no one to care for the child during the day.

• ​Financial Stability: The mother is economically sound, working at Tata Elxsi, and capable of providing for the child’s education and necessities.

• Lack of Support: The father admitted he was not providing any maintenance for the child’s upbringing or schooling.

  ​The Verdict

​The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s decision was not “perverse” and required no interference. It ruled that since the parties had amicably resolved the custody issue during their divorce, the father could not unilaterally backtrack on those terms, especially when the child’s current environment was stable. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the mother’s sole custody.

Joudeep Charborty Vs Payal Banerjee

446KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

​The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Vijay Kumar Srivastav, accused of cyber-stalking, blackmailing, and violating the privacy of a woman with whom he shared a prior consensual relationship.

​The petitioner was booked under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the IT Act, 2000. Investigations revealed that Srivastav allegedly:

• ​Created Fake Identities: Used his mobile number to create fake email and Instagram accounts in the informant’s name.

• ​Sextortion & Blackmail: Demanded ₹25 Lakhs or a divorce from her husband, threatening to leak obscene photos if she refused.

• ​Professional Sabotage: Sent defamatory messages and explicit photographs to the Vice-Chancellor and colleagues at the informant’s workplace (Amity University) to force her resignation.

• ​Privacy Breach: Compromised the informant’s dignity by changing her social media usernames 25 times and uploading obscene content.

​​The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual for three years and that the FIR was a retaliatory measure filed under family pressure. They claimed financial transactions were mutual and that the informant, being a mature married woman, was equally responsible for the nature of the relationship.

​Court’s Observations

​Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi rejected the defense’s “consensual relationship” plea, noting that a past friendship does not grant a license to exploit a person’s vulnerability. “To now unilaterally blame it on the informant... because she was already a married woman... will be unacceptable,” the Court remarked, emphasizing that the petitioner’s conduct “transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship”.

​Final Verdict

​Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and cannot be granted when it might impede a sensitive investigation. Consequently, the court vacated the previous interim protection and dismissed the application.

Vijay Kumar Vs State Of Jharkhand D

104KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband, Ravi Kumar, seeking a divorce from his wife, Diwa Sinha, on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, upheld the lower court’s decision, noting that the husband failed to establish the alleged “perversity” or cruelty in his wife’s conduct.

​Case Background

The couple married in January 2019, but the husband alleged that from the outset, his wife displayed “peculiar” and “critical” behavior. His claims included her expressing regret over career sacrifices, showing disrespect during a Holi festival, and eventually deserting him in August 2021. He further alleged physical assault and threats of suicide by the respondent.

​The Wife’s Defense

The respondent-wife denied all allegations, contending that she was the one subjected to mental and physical torture due to dowry demands. She claimed her father bore all marriage and travel expenses and even provided cash to the husband to save their conjugal life. Notably, she expressed a desire to continue the matrimonial relationship for the sake of their minor son.

​Court’s Observations

The Court highlighted several critical points in its judgment:

​Contradictory Evidence: The husband’s own testimony during cross-examination contradicted his initial claims. While he alleged immediate discord in his petition, he admitted in court that relations were “normal” and “cordial” for several weeks following the marriage, including during their honeymoon.

​Lack of Proof: The Court noted that the husband failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claims of cruelty.

​Refutation of Specific Incidents: Evidence presented by the wife, including Holi photographs showing the couple in a “smiling mood,” directly refuted the husband’s claims of ill-treatment during the festival.

​Wife’s Intent: The Court observed that the wife only filed cases for domestic violence and dowry harassment after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, supporting her claim that she initially sought to maintain the marriage.

​Final Verdict

Concluding that the husband appeared to be taking advantage of his own wrongs, the Court ruled that “cruelty” as a ground for divorce was not established. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that minor marital disputes do not constitute sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage

Ravi Kumar Vdiwa Sinha

665KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Training conditions were far from ideal. With no designated sports ground, Pushpa practised under trees, in empty rooms, and wherever space permitted. Her schedule stretched from morning to afternoon, and frequent injuries were part of her routine. Yet her commitment to the sport remained unwavering. Despite financial hardships following her father’s death, she sustained her training by selling vegetables to meet her daily expenses. Balancing livelihood and sport, Pushpa continued to progress and began achieving recognition for her talent and discipline.

Her dedication has translated into an impressive list of achievements:

• Gold Medal at the 3rd Senior Men and Women Para Throwball National Championship

(BBCL Cup) held at Tana Bhagat Indoor Stadium, Ranchi, from 21–23 September 2024.

• Gold Medal at the Nepal–India Throwball Match Series held on 29 March 2024 in Kathmandu, Nepal, representing India.

• Gold Medal at the Cambodia–India Para Throwball Match Series held on 5 December 2024 at the National Centre of Disabled Persons, Techno Sen, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

• Bronze Medal at the Asian Para Throwball Championship in Cambodia, a milestone she considers especially meaningful.

Her coach, Mukesh Kanchan, continues to play a key role in her development, providing both technical guidance and mentorship. Fellow athletes Mahima and Pratima have been her constant companions throughout her journey.Although social discrimination remains a challenge, Pushpa’s focus on her goals remains unwavering. Sports, she believes, have helped her overcome hesitation and self-doubt, giving her the confidence to speak about issues faced by para-athletes.

Pushpa advocates for greater awareness about para-sports and disability inclusion, particularly in schools and rural communities. She also calls for stronger government support and systemic reforms to promote and sustain para-athletes.

Today, Pushpa Minz represents not only sporting excellence but also the spirit of perseverance. Balancing life as a vegetable seller and an international para-athlete, she continues to inspire others to rise above barriers. Her journey marked by struggle, discipline, and achievement stands as a powerful reminder that determination can transform even the most difficult circumstances into extraordinary success.

The parties were married on 4 February 2019. Subsequently, disputes arose between them, following which the husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruelty, desertion, and non-consummation of marriage. The husband further alleged that the wife had refused to cohabit, maintained a relationship with another person, and subjected him to mental cruelty by lodging criminal complaints.

The wife denied all allegations and contended that she had been subjected to harassment and ill-treatment in the matrimonial home. She also claimed that criminal proceedings were initiated due to genuine grievances and not as acts of cruelty. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Aggrieved by the same, the wife filed an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that the husband had solemnised a second marriage. In view of this development, the wife expressed unwillingness to resume matrimonial life and instead sought permanent alimony. The Court, therefore, directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their income, assets, and financial status, and also called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner regarding their economic condition.

The report revealed that the wife was unemployed, had no independent source of income, and was dependent upon her father. She did not own any immovable property. On the other hand, the husband was found to be residing in a double-storey house, engaged in family business, and the family possessed substantial land holdings. The Court noted that the husband had sufficient financial capacity to provide permanent alimony.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that the object of granting permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to ensure that the spouse is not left destitute and is able to live with dignity. The Court emphasised that there is no straight-jacket formula for determining the quantum of alimony and that factors such as age, social status, financial capacity, future needs, and standard of living must be taken into account. The Court further noted that the wife was about 22 years old and had a long life ahead, requiring financial security for her future.

Taking into consideration the young age of the wife, absence of income, remarriage of the husband, and overall financial circumstances of the parties, the High Court directed the husband to pay ₹35,00,000 as one-time permanent alimony. The amount was ordered to be paid in four equal instalments within twelve months, with the first instalment to be paid within one month from the date of the order.

The ruling reiterates that courts may award lump-sum permanent alimony to secure the future of a financially dependent spouse, particularly where reconciliation is not possible and the husband has remarried. The judgment also highlights that the financial capacity of the husband, age of the wife, and her long-term survival are crucial considerations in determining just and reasonable maintenance

First Appeal No 223:20204

412KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

.

The PIL, filed in 2012 by the Jharkhand Human Rights Conference, sought judicial intervention to ensure that hospitals and healthcare institutions follow statutory protocols for handling and disposing of biomedical waste. The petition highlighted the indiscriminate dumping of hazardous medical waste in public areas, posing serious risks to human health and the environment.

A division bench led by Chief Justice M.S. Sonak observed that biomedical waste contains infectious and toxic materials capable of spreading life-threatening diseases and contaminating air, water and soil if not properly treated. The court noted that such negligence violates citizens’ fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Tracing the regulatory framework, the court referred to earlier legal developments including the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 and their replacement by the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016. The updated rules introduced stricter measures such as bar-coding of waste bags, mandatory pre-treatment of infectious waste, improved segregation practices, and enhanced accountability throughout the waste disposal process.

The court observed that despite the existence of these rules, enforcement had been weak due to administrative inaction, lack of coordination among authorities, and insufficient infrastructure. Earlier hearings revealed alarming instances of infectious hospital waste being dumped on roads and in drains in cities such as Ranchi, Dhanbad and Jamshedpur.

However, continuous judicial monitoring over the years has led to measurable improvements. The state has expanded its biomedical waste treatment infrastructure from a single facility to six operational Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facilities in districts including Ramgarh, Lohardaga, Dhanbad, Pakur and Deoghar, with another facility under construction in Giridih. Training programmes and regulatory inspections have also improved compliance among hospitals and clinics.

The court also took note of recent corrective measures at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, where a structured system for scientific waste segregation and collection has been implemented following the court’s intervention.

Concluding its observations, the High Court reiterated that biomedical waste management is not merely an administrative obligation but a constitutional responsibility of the State. It stressed that effective enforcement of environmental laws is essential to protect public health and maintain ecological balance.

The judgment underscores the continuing need for coordinated action by government departments, pollution control authorities and healthcare institutions to ensure safe and scientific disposal of biomedical waste across Jharkhand.

Bio Medical Waste Pil Judgement

573KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The FIR had accused the Chairman and CEOs of Mithila Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. of selling land different from what was mentioned in the sale deed. The informant alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 506 of the IPC. However, it was undisputed that the informant had been given possession of the land, a correction slip had been issued in her favour, and she had already constructed a house on the property.

The Court held that there was no allegation of deception at the inception of the transaction , a necessary ingredient to establish cheating under Section 420 IPC. It further found no material showing dishonest misappropriation to attract Section 406 IPC, nor any specific intent to cause alarm to sustain a charge under Section 506 IPC.

Observing that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

Ram Binod Choudhary And Others V

180KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The petitioner was named in three NDPS cases involving recovery of 700 kg, 582 kg, and 66.9 kg of ganja in separate cases in Jharkhand and Bihar. Though he had secured bail in two cases, the State invoked preventive detention, alleging habitual involvement in ganja trafficking and threat to public order. The detention order dated 30 July 2025 was later confirmed by the Advisory Board, fixing detention for one year under Section 11 of the Act.

The petitioner argued that the order was passed after an unexplained seven-month delay from the proposal stage and that grant of bail negated the need for preventive detention, relying on Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura (2022).

The Court held that the delay was satisfactorily explained as part of the process of obtaining reports and reaching “subjective satisfaction.” It further ruled that grant of bail does not bar preventive detention, which is based on apprehension of future illicit activity. Relying on D.M. Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka (2011) and Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland (2025), the Bench reiterated that preventive detention is valid if constitutional and statutory safeguards are followed. Finding no procedural or constitutional infirmity, the Court upheld the one-year detention and dismissed the petition.

Bipin Bihari Singh V

474KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In Aslam Parvez v. State of Jharkhand, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary ruled that only designated authorities such as Drugs Inspectors can initiate prosecution under the Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma.

The case stemmed from a 2020 police interception in Hazaribagh, where cough syrup bottles and other items were allegedly seized. Police had invoked Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act along with Section 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Allowing the petition in part, the High Court set aside proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but permitted the IPC charges to continue. The ruling reiterates that offences under special statutes must be prosecuted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein.

Aslam Parvez Vs State Of Jharkhand

131KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

However, the Deputy Commissioner, acting as the Appellate Authority, later modified that eviction order. Challenging this, the parents approached the High Court. Justice Rajesh Kumar held that the 2007 Act is a welfare legislation meant to protect the dignity, life, and property of senior citizens. Observing that the house was the self-acquired property of the father and that co-existence between the parties was not possible, the Court ruled that the parents were entitled to exclusive peaceful possession.

The Court also emphasised that inheritance carries corresponding duties, and children cannot claim property benefits while failing to provide a secure and respectful environment to their parents. Setting aside the appellate order dated 23.02.2024, the High Court restored protection in favour of the senior citizens and disposed of the writ petition.

Lakhan Lal Poddar Anr V State Of Jharkhand

72.3KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Applying settled principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Court held that the chain was complete and excluded any hypothesis of innocence. The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was therefore upheld.The Bench observed that brutality alone does not automatically warrant the death penalty. Sentencing, it said, must follow a structured judicial balancing process rather than an emotional response.

The conviction has been upheld, and the sentence has been subjected to strict judicial scrutiny in light of the constitutional principles governing capital punishment. The Court emphasised that death penalty can be confirmed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed and when the case satisfies the “rarest of rare” threshold after weighing both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Indar Oraon Vs State Of Jharkhnad

565KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Setting aside the order dated 27.09.2018, the High Court held that non-performance of an agreement does not automatically amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust. It found no dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement and no “entrustment” or misappropriation to attract criminal liability.

Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court ruled that continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the proceedings.

Display Pdf

141KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Court held that the charging section of the parent Act permitted levy only on units of energy, not on “net charges.” Introducing a new basis of taxation without amending the charging section was ultra vires and violated Article 265 of the Constitution.

It further ruled that granting the executive unrestricted power to amend rates and categories amounted to excessive delegation. The retrospective application of the Rules was also declared invalid.

Accordingly, the amendments imposing duty on “net charges” were quashed

Display Pdf

373KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

.

The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging irregularities in the preparation and publication of revised merit lists, appointment of less meritorious candidates, and non-filling and surrender of vacancies. However, the Court observed that these very issues had been comprehensively examined by a Coordinate Single Bench in the Mina Kumari case.

Emphasising the doctrine of judicial precedent and discipline, the Court reiterated that a Single Bench is bound by the decision of a Coordinate Single Bench on identical questions of law and fact. Judicial consistency, the Court noted, is essential to maintain certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice.

The Court further observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should not be invoked to entertain repetitive litigation involving the same cause of action that has already been adjudicated.

In Mina Kumari, the High Court had undertaken an extensive examination of systemic irregularities in JSSC recruitment processes, including alleged violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, arbitrary protection of certain candidates, non-compliance with Supreme Court directions, and issues relating to unfilled vacancies.

To address these concerns, the earlier judgment had directed the constitution of a One-Man Fact-Finding Commission headed by a former High Court Judge. The Commission was empowered to examine records, summon officials, and inquire into:

• Preparation of revised merit lists

• Appointment of less meritorious candidates

• Protection of already appointed candidates

• Filling of remaining 2034 vacancies strictly on merit

• Initiation of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against erring officials

The judgment had also protected existing appointees until a final decision and mandated that remaining vacancies be filled strictly on merit.

The State and JSSC have challenged the Mina Kumari judgment before a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 764 of 2025. However, the Court clarified that mere pendency of a Letters Patent Appeal does not dilute or suspend the binding nature of a Coordinate Bench decision unless it is stayed or set aside by a superior court. Entertaining the present petition independently, the Court held, would risk inconsistent outcomes, undermine judicial discipline, and lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by applying the directions and protections already laid down in Mina Kumari. No independent relief was granted to the petitioner. The Court clarified that any order passed by the Division Bench in the pending appeal would automatically apply to the present petitioner. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. With this order, the petitioner remains subject to the outcome of the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission’s inquiry and the final decision of the State Government as directed in the earlier judgment.

Display Pdf

174KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Ranchi, February 12, 2026: The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to expeditiously decide a pending encroachment appeal concerning alleged illegal construction over the Sonadubbi River, observing that matters involving public land and environmental degradation must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.

The direction came in W.P. (PIL) No. 5787 of 2025, where the Court took suo motu cognisance of allegations that M/s Monnet Coal Washeries had encroached upon a portion of the Sonadubbi River. According to an affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2, nearly 1,800 feet of the river area falling under Mouza Vishrampur, Khata No. 41, Plot No. 19 (measuring 6.34 acres), was found to be encroached. The land is recorded as Gair Mazaruwa Malik, with its nature classified as river land. It was further stated that the company had constructed 12 pillars over the river stretch.

The Circle Officer, Khalari, had earlier passed an order dated July 12, 2023, in Encroachment Case No. 01/2022–23, directing removal of the encroachment. However, the order was challenged by Respondent No. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who stayed the removal order on September 29, 2023, in Encroachment Appeal Case No. 40R15/23–24. With the appeal remaining pending, the alleged occupation of the river land continued, raising concerns about environmental impact and public interest.

The High Court observed that since the appeal was already pending before the competent authority, it would not enter into the merits of the dispute. Instead, it emphasised that appellate authorities are required to decide such matters within a reasonable time, particularly when public land and environmental concerns are involved. Accordingly, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to decide Encroachment Appeal Case No. 40R15/23–24 on or before March 31, 2026, strictly in accordance with law.

The Court also noted that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which had recently been added as Respondent No. 6, had not yet filed its response. It directed the Ministry to submit its affidavit before the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for further hearing on April 17, 2026. While refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court underscored the need for procedural fairness and timely adjudication in cases involving public land and environmental protection.

Display Pdf

357KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download