2026:JHHC:11084-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2444 of 2026 1. Ayachak Ashrama, having its registered office at ‘Gurudham’, P- 238 Swami Swarupananda Sarani, Kankurgachi, Kolkata, through its authorized signatory/Manager, namely, Rajendra Prasad Chatterjee, S/o Sukumar Chatterjee, R/o Gram Guthulia, PO- Gourbazar, PS-Faridpur, District-Bardhhaman, West Bengal 2. Tapan Brahmachary, S/o Swami Swarupananda Paramanhasa Dev, R/o ‘Gurudham’, P-238 Swami Swarupananda Sarani, PO & PS-Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 3. Dr. Ananda Kamal Brahmachary, S/o Swami Swarupananda Paramanhasa Dev, R/o ‘Gurudham’, Swami Swarupananda Sarani, Kankurgachi, Kolkata 4. Dhiren Brahmachary, S/o Swami Swarupananda Paramahansa Dev, R/o D-46/19A, Swarupanand Street, Behind Luxa Thana, Chhitupur, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 5. The Multiversity, a society having registered office at ‘Gurudham’, P-238 Swami Swarupananda Sarani, Kankurgachi, Kolkata, through its authorized signatory/Manager, namely, Rajendra Prasad Chatterjee, S/o Sukumar Chatterjee, R/o Gram Guthulia, PO-Gourbazar, PS-Faridpur, District-Bardhhaman, West Bengal ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 2. Zila Parishad, Bokaro through Chief Executive Officer/DDC, Bokaro Office, Office of Zila Parishad, Sector-1, Near Airport, PO & PS-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro 3. Office of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Office, Sector-1, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro 4. Chas Municipal Corporation, Chas, through its Administrator, having office at Purulia Road, Near ITI More, Chas, Bokaro ... … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal, Advocate ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 16.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, challenge tender notice dated 20.12.2025 by claiming that such tender relates to undertaking public works on the 2026:JHHC:11084-DB 2 petitioners’ property. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have already a decree from the civil court and, therefore, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioners’ property or invite any tenders for undertaking any public works thereof. 4. Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Anup Kumar Agarwal appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent – Corporation, submit that disputed questions of fact are involved in this matter and if at all, the petitioners apprehend any violation of their proprietary rights, then, the petitioners have alternate remedies. 5. The tender notice in this case does not give any details of the property. The decree referred to by Mr. Sinha does describe the property, but the boundaries of the said property refer to several properties which could be prima facie described as public property. In the absence of clarity therefore, it would be hazardous to entertain this petition, which in any event, relates to the petitioners attempting to protect their proprietary interests. 6. If the petitioners are confident of their case, then, it is for the petitioners invoke the ordinary civil remedies for protection of their alleged proprietary rights. This Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot normally be invoked for such purposes and in such situations. 7. Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition but leave it open to the petitioners to avail of alternate remedies as may be available 2026:JHHC:11084-DB 3 under the law for protection of their alleged proprietary rights. 8. All contentions of all parties in this regard are kept explicitly open. 9. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty in the above terms. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 16, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 17.04.2026