2025:JHHC:11476 --1-- C.M.P. No. 353 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 353 of 2024 ---- Tata Motors Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, PO, PS and District – Mumbai – 400001 (Maharashtra) and its works and place of business at Telco, PO and PS – Telco, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) through its General Manager (Legal Services) Sri Anand Vardhan, aged about 52 years, S/o Late K.P. Singh, residing at House No.B-4, Dailmer Benz Road, TELCO, Birsanagar, Chotta Gobindpur, PO and PS – Telco, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, PIN – 831004 (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Divisional Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Kolhan Division, PO and PS – Chaibasa, West Singhbhum – 833201 3. Telco Worker Union represented through its Secretary, Hans Stoehr Road, Telco Colony, PO and PS – Telco, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 4. Prakash Kumar, son of Late Ram Chandra Singh, R/o Cross No. 10/A, L4-9, Telco Colony, PO and PS – Telco, Town – Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) .... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate :- Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA III For O.P. Nos.3 & 4 :- Ms. Ishaani Singh, Advocate :- Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate ---- 06/09.04.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.3 & 4. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondent No.2 to dispose of the H.R.C. Case 2025:JHHC:11476 --2-- C.M.P. No. 353 of 2024 No.08 of 2018 pending before the learned Court of Controller, Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, Jamshedpur. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the quarter in question is required by the company and unnecessarily the petitions are being filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for adjournments and in view of that the proper direction may kindly be issued. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 submits that even the evidence of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 are not taken by the learned Court and for that the revision has been preferred before the Divisional Commissioner under the said Act and in that case notice has been issued. He further submits that opposite party Nos.3 and 4 are ready to cooperate for early disposal of the case and even he has stated that opposite party Nos.3 and 4 will not take even a single adjournment without any cogent reason. 5. In view of the above, since now it is in the knowledge of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner about the revision, if petitioner has not appeared in that case till date petitioner may appear in the revision case and in view of submission of learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.3 and 4 this matter is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pursue the matter diligently for early disposal of the case. 6. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/