MUNNA HONHAGA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner is absent.

(2.) Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 4 and 5.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Marketing Board submits that they have filed a counter-affidavit and have stated that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner never applied for and never took part in the settlement of the Mangla Hat, Chaibasa and accordingly, he has got no locus-standi to question the settlement made in the matter. He further submits that as per the counter-affidavit, the settlement has not been made in favour of respondent no.6 for the year, 2011-12 and therefore, the question of alleged settlement in favour of the respondent no.6 as claimed by the writ petitioner does not arise.