2026:JHHC:17703 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3470 of 2021 ------ Sreeraj S. S/o Sreekumaran Potty, R/o N, Devivilasam, Gramam, Ennakkad, PO & PS-Ennakkad, District-Alappuzha, Kerala-689624. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, Officiating from District Collectorate, Camp II, PO & PS-Bokaro, Steel City, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand,827001. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Chas, Officiating from the SDO Office, Chas, PO & PS-Chas, Dist-Bokaro. 3. Ayyapa Seva Sangham through its President, Office at Ayappa Temple Complex, Sector-5, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Sector 6, Dist-Bokaro, Jharkhand,827006. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Mr. Shrestha Gautam, Advocate ------ 02/ 18th June, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent who is the newly appointed Managing Committee. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro does not have any jurisdiction to interfere into the activities of the Temple and forcibly evict the petitioner, who was the Priest of the said Temple. 3. After going through the records, I find that the petitioner was a Priest of a private Temple. He was appointed by the Managing Committee which is also not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Some dispute arose between the Managing Committee and the Priest, thus the Managing Committee terminated the services of this petitioner and requested him to hand over the properties including the keys which was in his control. This order of removal was informed to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro, who interfered and evicted the Priest. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer has acted beyond the 2026:JHHC:17703 2 jurisdiction. The Sub-Divisional Officer has got no power to evict a person in the manner which has been done, as the said Sub- Divisional Officer has got no authority. Thus, this order which is beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities, is set aside. 5. Now since much more water has flown from 11.08.2021 i.e., the date of the order, this Court has to see what relief can be granted to the petitioner, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has left Bokaro and is now residing in the State of Kerala, from where he belongs, and is engaged as a priest. 6. After going through the entire petition, I find that he was removed on the ground that he behaved rudely with the committee members. 7. The defense of the petitioner is that the committee members wanted some benefit which he refused, which was treated to be a rude behavior. Further, I find that the petitioner was on probation and the probation period was not extended. The said order of removal is also not challenged before any authority. 8. After going through that order, I find that the petitioner has been removed alleging misconduct, thus, the same is stigmatic. 9. Be as it may, since the petitioner has already left for Kerala and the new Committee has already taken over the charge, it will be open to the new Committee, if they thinks fit, to re- engage the petitioner. 10. The impugned order which has been passed against the petitioner will not come in the way if the new committee exercises their option to appoint the petitioner afresh. 11. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.06.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 23.06.2026