SOMATH HALDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Memo No.243 dated 04.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.4 whereby and whereunder the water reservoirs in the urban area has been directed to be handed over in favour of the municipality.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the said water reservoirs/tanks/pokhars have been settled in favour of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 and in terms of the terms and conditions of the contract the petitioner is carrying out the fishing work in the aforesaid tanks but all of a sudden the impugned decision has been taken on 26.05.2016 by which the tanks have been decided and directed to be transferred in favour of the municipality in terms of the provisions of Circular No.4125 dated 17.10.2013, therefore, the ground has been raised that when the terms and conditions of the contract was in subsistence during the course when the impugned order has been passed, the same cannot be done in course of subsistence period of the contract, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-respondent, pressing the same Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the impugned decision has been taken in terms of the Cabinet decision which has been issued vide Memo No.4125 dated 17.10.2013 and the said Cabinet decision was taken in pursuance to the provision of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 wherein the provision has been made about vesting of property which includes public tanks/reservoirs also, therefore, if the Cabinet has taken a decision to follow the statue and in terms thereof any decision has been taken, the same cannot be interfered with.