2026:JHHC:10792 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3573 of 2019 ------ Ajay Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Mast Ram Sharma, aged around 56 years, R/o K2/TS-6, Tube Baridih Colony, PS. Sidhghora, PO. Baridih, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831017, A workman of Respondent No.4 and also (Authorised representative of 10 workers under their power of Attorneys however, essentially representing 284 workmen as represented in various forums and courts in ancillary and incidental matters). … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Urban Dev. & Housing Dept. (Urban Dev.) PO & PS-Doranda, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi -834002. 2. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority (AIADA), Shere Punjab Chowk, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, PO & PS- Adityapur, Jharkhand-831013. 3. Tata Steel Limited, Bombay House, 24-Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai, PO- Bazargate and P.S.-ColabaMaharashtra- 400001, India. 4. Tayo Rolls Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 3, Circuit House Area (North East), Road No.11, PO & PS-Bistupur, Dist-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur-831004. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Malityar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate ------ 10/ 16th April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner who is an employee of respondent No.4, Tayo Rolls Limited, has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for a mandamus to cancel the lease agreement which was entered between respondent No.1 i.e., the State of Jharkhand and respondent No.3 i.e., the Tata Steel Limited. 3. It is an admitted fact that the State of Jharkhand (erstwhile the State of Bihar) has leased-out huge tract of lands in favour of Tata Steel Limited for setting up of their township and industry. The Tata Steel Limited thereafter sub-leased a land in 2026:JHHC:10792 2 favour of respondent No.4, Tayo Rolls Limited. The entire area is an industrial area. The petitioner who happens to be an employee of Tayo Rolls Limited, has filed this writ application for the relief for seeking cancellation of the lease-deed which the State has executed in favour of Tata Steel Limited. Further, the petitioner has also prayed that after cancelling the lease, similar type of lease be executed in favour of respondent No.4 by respondent No.1 which is the State, to carrying on the business of respondent No.4. 4. The lease is a registered lease between the State and the Tata Steel Limited. It cannot be cancelled in the manner in which the petitioner is seeking in this writ petition. 5. Further, this Court fails to understand the locus of the petitioner. He is merely an employee of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is also not claiming any settlement or lease of land. Interest of the petitioner has not been disclosed in the writ petition. This writ petition with the prayer made, is nothing but a malicious litigation and is a definitely frivolous one. This is nothing but an absolute misuse of the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayer which has been made, even if the petitioner has got any locus standi, cannot be granted by High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Further, no direction can be given to lease-out land in favour of any person including respondent No.4 by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. These type of frivolous litigation needs to be deprecated very strongly. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within a month, failing which, it will be open to the JHALSA to initiate a proceeding under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 for recovery of the same. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 16.04.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 17.04.2026