AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the proposed action or action already taken by the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board by which, according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State Housing Board is either allotted or will allot the plots to private individual. The Housing Board cannot allot the plots to any person because of the reason that on the land in dispute there is old temple and road. The temple was constructed by the local people and road was constructed by local body, therefore, it involves public interest. It is submitted that respondents including the Housing Board did not choose to file any counter-affidavit in this writ petition.

(2.) At this juncture, it will be appropriate to clear the procedural position. As per procedure prevailing in High Court, before filing the writ petition, the petitioner is required to serve a copy of the writ petition upon the counsel of the concerned Department and therefore, the copy of the writ petition was served upon the counsel for the respondents. In most of the cases, the State or it's departments will file reply to the writ petition, though, the Court has not issued any notice to the respondents calling upon them to appear and file counter-affidavit. Therefore, Learned Counsel has submitted that respondents have not filed the counter to the petitioner. We are of the view that the High Court has power and jurisdiction to disposes the writ petition even without issuing notice to other party. The High Court is also not required to call upon other party, even if it is present in Court and has put appearance in the matter unless, in the opinion of High Court, there is reason to call upon other party to appear.

(3.) After going through the record and after hearing the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that even no case is made out to call upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavit and to address the Court.