RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.II appearing for the State-respondents takes a preliminary objection that since the petitioner has already deposited the arms in Koderma, coupled with the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has not been made a party, and further the Election Commission of India has not responded, this writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) I find no merit in the preliminary objection. So far as depositing the arms is concerned, the same will not make the writ petition infructuous because if an impugned order, after adjudication is held to be bad in law, all consequent action to the said order will be treated to be null and void. So far as non-responding by the respondent-Election Commission of India is concerned, I find that this case is being heard for three dates now. Though the Election Commission of India is a party to the writ petition and copy of this writ petition has also been served to the concerned counsel for the respondent-Election Commission of India and even the name of the counsel is being reflected in the cause list, yet the said respondent has not chosen to appear. This Court cannot await for indefinite period and defer this case awaiting their appearance. Thus, this order is being passed exparte qua Election Commission of India is concerned. Further, I hold that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma is not a necessary party to this writ petition because the impugned order, which has been passed is by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and arms licence of the petitioner was issued by the authorities at Bokaro, who are parties before me and have filed their reply.