SADHAN CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this interlocutory application, petitioner seeks addition of the prayer in para 1 of the main writ petition as stated in para 3 of the instant interlocutory application seeking quashing of the order dated 21.6.2004/24.6.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in which the mining lease of the petitioner was terminated prematurely and also for quashing of subsequent demands raised against the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the petitioner could come to know that lease of the petitioner itself has been terminated by the order dated 21.6.2004/24.6.2004 annexed as Annexure-I to the first supplementary counter affidavit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was never served upon him and now it has been brought on record. The petitioner seeks to impugn the same in the main writ application since, in the main writ application the original relief is in relation to quashing of demand in respect of the said land in question raised after passing of the order of termination of lease. Petitioner prays for allowing the interlocutory application, since the aforesaid amendment in the main writ petition will not change the nature of the writ petition and it will also avoid the multiplicity of the proceeding.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the same and submitted that petitioner was aware of the aforesaid order but has not impugned the same in original writ petition. However, from the submission of the parties, it appears that the prayer sought to be amended is related to the same lease for which demand was made in the present writ application and the lease itself stood terminated, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-I to the first supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State. It would, therefore, not prejudice the other side if the said amendment is allowed to be incorporated in the main writ petition.

(3.) Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed to incorporate the amendment in the prayer portion as well as in the relevant place in the main petition by making necessary correction in red ink.