(2026: JHHC: 18975-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 855 of 2017 Udhwa Prakhand Mashinikrit Nav Yatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited having its office at Udhwa (now Piyarpur), P.O Piyarpur, P.S. Radhanagar, District Sahibganj through its Secretary, Jamir Ahmad, son of late Yunus Ali, resident of at and P.O. -Piyarpur, P.S. Radhanagar, District - Sahibganj. ….. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Co- operative, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, having its office at Dumka, P.O. & P.S. - Dumka, District -Dumka. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. - Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj. 4. The Additional Collector, Sahibganj, having its office at Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District - Sahibganj. 5. The Circle Officer cum Anchal Adhikari, Udhwa Circle, P.O._-Udhwa, P.S. Udhwa, District - Sahibganj. …. ….. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Rajeeva Sharma, Sr Advocate Mr Om Prakash, Advocate Mr Sunil Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II ----- 06 /Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-Society, by filing this petition, has sought the following reliefs:- (a) To quash the order dated 23.09.2016. (b) The enhancement of the settlement price regarding Radhanagar Begemganj Ferry Ghats. 3. We must say that the prayer clauses are long-winded and the petitioner has included both facts and reasons in the prayer clauses itself. Therefore, it is very difficult to comprehend what the petitioner seeks other than the (2026: JHHC: 18975-DB) 2 quashing of the order dated 23.09.2016 and what the petitioner perceives as an exorbitant reserve price, followed by the enhancements. 4. Be that as it may, the records show that the petitioner was primarily concerned with the settlement price for ferry ghats during the period between 2015 and 2018 at the time this petition was instituted in 2017. After that, the petitioner, apprehending that it would not be permitted to participate in the auction for the period between 2018 and 2021, filed I.A. No. 11109 of 2018. 5. By order dated 15.12.2018, this I.A. was disposed of, and the petitioner was allowed to participate in the auction for the Ferry Ghats for the period between 2018-2021. By now, the original period between 2015-2018 and the further period between 2018-2021 have already expired. There is nothing on record to enable this Court to know what has transpired after 2021. 6. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the reliefs in this petition, by now, are rendered infructuous. If at all the petitioner has any other grievance or cause of action for the period after 2021, then, we grant the petitioner liberty to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for redressal of the same. 7. Since we have not adjudicated on the merits of the rival contentions, we clarify that all contentions of all parties are left open to be decided at the appropriate stage by the appropriate forum, should the same be raised by filing an appropriate proceeding. 8. This petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. (2026: JHHC: 18975-DB) 3 9. Interim order, if any, shall cease to operate with the disposal of this petition. Interim application, if any, still pending will no longer survive and is disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 30, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR’ Uploaded on 02.07.2026