Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7491 (JHR)

Pradip Kumar Rakshit v. Fishery

WPC/2926/2017 · 2025-08-18

Rajesh Kumar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:24043 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2926 of 2017 ---- Pravir Kumar Rakshit, Son of Late Kamalakanta Rakshit, resident of Village- Bamangama, P.O-Tinphar, P.S-Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Fishery, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi P.O Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Land Conservation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi P.O Dhurwa, P.S-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. District Fishery-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Sahibganj, P.O + P.S. Sahibganj, District-Sahibganj 4. Land Conservation Officer, Sahibganj, P.O + P.S. Sahibganj, District- Sahibganj 5. The Chairman, Rajmahal Block Fishery Cooperative Committee Limited, Rajmahal, P.O + P.S-Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj 6. Water Panchayat Committee, through its Chairman Shri Vhikari Bhagat, son of Pradumann Prasad Bhagat, resident of village-Bamangama, P.O-Tinphar, P.S. Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. A.K. Geasen, Ac to AAG-IA For the Resp. No.6 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate ---- 11/Dated: 18th August, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(a) For quashing the letter contained in Memo No.172 dated 02.04.2017 issued by respondent No.3, refusing to entertain the objection of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.6 dated 14.02.2017 on the ground that the petitioner has filed his objection with a delay of 25 days where as he was required to file his objection within 3 days of the receipt of letter No.39 dated 17.01.2017 being wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide because right to be heard vis-à- vis deprivation of livelihood is the petitioner’s fundamental right and non-hearing of the objection of the petitioner on the ground of delay is very hyper technical approach adopted by the respondent-State. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the work order contained in Memo No.198 dated 10-03-2017, passed by respondent No.6 to execute/implement the work of repairing of pond by JCB 2025:JHHC:24043 2. W.P.C No.2926 of 2017 machine in terms of scheme No.73/2016-17, in view of the following reasons:- (i) Prior to allotment of work to respondent no.6, no hearing has been given to the petitioner and that he has been removed from his Kamlapokhar, which was his source and means of livelihood; (ii) The pond of Kamlapokhar of Mauza-Bamangama, bearing Plot No.384 is meant for drinking of the villagers and that the respondents cannot be deprived the villagers of Bamangama and adjacent villagers from using its water for drinking purposes. (C) To restrain the respondents from carrying out any sort of work in Kamlapokhar Plot No.184 Mauza Bamangama for enabling its water to be used for irrigation purposes as the said Pokhar has been exclusively demarcated for supply of drinking water for the villagers of Mauza-Bamangama; (d) To hold and declare that Kamlapokhar of Mauza Bumangama bearing Plot No.384 is meant for drinking of the villagers and the respondents cannot deprive the villagers of Bamangama and adjacent villages from using its water for drinking purposes. (e) To direct the concerned respondents to immediately make payment of Rs.3 Lac to the petitioner for the lose-damage done to the petitioner for his wrongful deprivation from his source and means of livelihood (f) To direct the concerned respondents to make payment of Rs.10 lac for causing the petitioner harassment his deprivation from his source and means of livelihood of making the business of fishery at Kamlapokhar of Mauza-Bamangama, bearing plot no.383.” 3. After some arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with a liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised no objection. 5. Accordingly, present writ petition is hereby, disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded