IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 2539 of 2018 Marwari Kanwar Sangh, Baidyanathdham, Deoghar, through its Executive President, Mahabir Prasad Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. Deoghar Municipality, Deoghar, through the Special Officer 4. Town Commissioner, Deoghar Municipality Corporation, Deoghar ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the Res.-State: Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-III For the Res. Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate ----- 18/09.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. He submits that the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing this writ petition by relying upon the earlier decision of the Division Bench and therefore the directions may be issued for consideration of the petitioner’s review petition on merits without adverting to the issue of limitation. 3. We find that the petitioner was pursuing this writ petition bonafidely. Therefore, if the petitioner invokes the remedy available under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 by filing an appropriate application and evidences within four weeks from today, the authorities under the said Act including the authorities under Section 167 of the said Act shall decide the petitioner’s 2026:JHHC:6169-DB 2 application/appeal/review on merits without adverting to the issue of limitation. 4. All contentions of the parties including the petitioner’s contention that the issue stands resolved in its favour by the decisions of this Court in W.P. (T) No. 2716 of 2006 decided on 05.09.2012 and W.P. (L) No. 2283 of 2011 decided on 02.09.2016, must be considered. 5. In addition, if the petitioner produces any evidence to the effect that it is indeed an NGO, which is not operating any hotel or making any profit out of its properties, is produced, even that evidence/material must be considered by the authorities. 6. Similarly, the authorities must also consider the rival contentions made on behalf of the Municipal Council including the contention that the judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 2283 of 2011 in fact helps the Municipal Council and justifies the levy of the holding tax. 7. In short, all the contentions of the parties are left open, provided the petitioner applies for and avails of the alternative remedy within four weeks of the uploading of this order on this Court’s website. 8. If the alternative remedy is availed of within four weeks, we request the authorities to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within three months from the date of filing of such application/appeal/review. 9. Needless to say that the authorities must hear all the parties and pass a reasoned order. 2026:JHHC:6169-DB 3 10. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty in the above terms. 11. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 09.03.2026 Satish/Vikas/