IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 257 of 2024 M/s Udaipur Marbles, having its office at LH More, Sonatand, PO & PS-Siwandih, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro through its Proprietor Rajesh Jaiswal @ Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal … Petitioner Versus 1. Bokaro Steel Limited, through its Director In-charge, having its office at Administrative Building, Bokaro Steel City, Sector-4, PO & PS-Ram Mandir, District-Bokaro 2. The Executive Director, (P &A), Bokaro Steel Limited, having its office at Administrative Building, Sector-4, PO & PS-Ram Mandir, District-Bokaro 3. The Chief General Manager, Town Services, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at Administrative Building, Sector-4, PO & PS- Ram Mandir, District-Bokaro 4. The Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, an authority appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, having its office Ram Mandir Camp, PO & PS-Ram Mandir, District-Bokaro 5. The State of Jharkhand 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the Respondent-SAIL : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, AC to SC (L&C)-I ----- 05/06.01.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued in connection with proceeding arising out of Case No. A/E 335/2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) instituted by the respondent-SAIL against the petitioner in the court of the respondent no. 4 – the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro by which the said court has given ex-parte finding declaring the petitioner’s occupation over the public premises with further direction to the proprietor of the petitioner-firm to remove the permanent pucca structure with entire establishment from the land 2 W.P.(C). No. 257 of 2024 in question over which he has been in possession for more than 50 years, which is without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, Case No. A/E 335/2023 has already been disposed of by the respondent no. 4 directing the proprietor of the petitioner-firm to remove the construction made over the land in question with further direction that the person occupying the said premises shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- as cost for removal of the said construction. It is further submitted that aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal before the Principal District Judge, Bokaro, which is still pending adjudication. 3. Considering the said development which has taken place during pendency of the present writ petition, there is no need to further proceed in the matter. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to pursue the pending appeal before the Principal District Judge, Bokaro. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish