Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22804 (JHR)

MADHULIKA PANDEY v. DEOGHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRO DOEGHAR MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, DEOGHAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

WPC/6390/2026 · 2026-08-21

Sri Ananda Sen

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:25287 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6390 of 2026 ------ Madhulika Pandey, Wife of Devta Pandey, Resident of House No.189B, Khordah, Bampass Town, Devsangh, Bhandar Kola, Deosang, PO & PS- Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar. … … Petitioner(s) Versus Deoghar Municipal Corporation, through Deoghar Municipal Commissioner, Deoghar Municipal Corporation, PO, PS & Dist-Deoghar. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV ------ 02/ 21st August, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Notice bearing No.150/TP dated 4th July, 2025 (Annexure-9), whereby the respondent-Deoghar Municipal Corporation has restrained the petitioner from making repair / constructions in view of stay order passed by the High Court in WP(C) No.1294 of 2025 on 27.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court through the order passed in WP(C) No.1294 of 2025 submits that in fact the order restrained the respondent from demolishing, as the Court stayed the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in U.C. Case No.1 of 2025. She further submits that the Deoghar Municipal Corporation has misinterpreted the order. She lastly submits that the petitioner is only undertaking some repair works. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the notice, I find that notice has been issued to the husband of the petitioner to stop the construction work. 5. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is only making some repairs which is necessary in this season. Further, from paragraph No.10 of the order passed in writ petition, I find that in WP(C) No.1294 of 2025, the Court stayed the operation of order dated 18.03.2025 passed in U.C. Case No.1 of 2025. There is no order passed to restrain the petitioner from making any repair works. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I direct the petitioner to 2026:JHHC:25287 Page | 2 approach the Municipal Commissioner, Deoghar by filing a representation along with a copy of this order and the order dated 27.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.1294 of 2025 and explain the stand of the petitioner. 7. Once the petitioner files the said representation, explaining all the aforesaid facts and the fact that the petitioner is not making any fresh constructions, rather is undertaking some repairing work, it is expected that the Deoghar Municipal Corporation will pass an appropriate order. 8. Considering what has been held above, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 21st August, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 22/08/2026