SHEELA RANI KAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.07.2005 (Annexure -14) passed by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 1996 whereby the respondent No. 2 in restoration case being Misc. Case No. 05 of 1996 filed by the respondent No. 3, Dhanbad Municipality, Dhanbad before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 for restoration of B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 01 of 1995, has proceeded to set aside the order of the Original Authority passed in B.P.L.E. Case No. 233/87 -88 dated 23 -12 -1994.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a proceeding in Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act was initiated against the petitioner in B.P.L.E. Case No. 233/87 -88, which was decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.1994 (Annexure -6). Being aggrieved Dhanbad Municipality preferred an appeal being B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 01 of 1995, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 12.08.1996. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3, Dhanbad Municipality has filed Misc. Case No. 05 of 1996 for restoration of the said appeal before the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. In the meantime, petitioner had moved this Court as water connection in the premises of the petitioner bearing holding No. 233, Khata No. 6, Plot No. 6 situated in Mouza Budha, Dhanbad was disconnected. In the said writ petition being W.P.C. No. 3103 of 1998(R), Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, vide judgment dated 08.03.2000, directed the Collector to proceed with the hearing of restoration petition and if the appeal is restored, also proceed with the hearing of the appeal and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was observed that if the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioners, then the petitioners should be at liberty to make an application before the Dhanbad Municipality, Dhanbad through Special Officer (respondent No. 2) for restoration of supply of water connection which shall be considered in accordance with law (Annexure -11). Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2, while hearing the Misc. Case No. 05 of 1996 for restoration of appeal itself i.e. B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 01 of 1995, has proceeded to set aside the order of the Original Authority, which was passed on 23.12.1994 in the said B.P.L.E. Case No. 233/87 -88, which is not only against the procedure established by law, but also contrary to the direction passed by Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, in C.W.J.C. No. 3103 of 1998(R).

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order as well as relevant materials on records as also the order dated 08.03.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3103 of 1998(R), it appears that the respondent No. 2 has committed illegality in deciding the main appeal while hearing the Misc. Case No. 05 of 1996, which is also contrary to the direction passed in the earlier writ petition as referred hereinabove vide order dated 08.03.2000. The Appellate Authority was required to hear the restoration application and only upon the restoration of the original appeal, the appeal should have been heard on merit as per the direction of Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, as expeditiously as possible and thereafter, the matter should have been decided on merit one way or the other.