( 2026:JHHC:12913 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 63 of 2020 ------- M/s. Park Sarvamangala Projects Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under Companies Act, having its registered office at 67B, N.S.Road, Kolkata, and Project Office at Shree Vishnu Talkies Lane, Ranchi through one of its Directors, Sri Narendra Butala, son of Late Manilal Butala, resident of 503, Vallabh Sadan, Peace Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. …... …. Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Manoj Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, Ranchi. 3. Sri Manoj Kumar, Town Planner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Road, Ranchi. 4. Md. Jawed, son of Late Md. Karimullah, resident of Surbhi Apartment, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Om Prakash Deora, son of Late Mahavir Prasad Deora, resident of Lalpur Chowk, beside Old Electric Office, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Taraknath Das, son of Late Sujit Das, resident of Ganesh Lal Lane, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. Rai Mahimapat Ray, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. .…. …. Opp. Parties -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suman Marandi, AC to SC-IV For the RMC : Dr. Vandana Singh, Advocate Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate Ms. Kumari Ruchika, Advocate Order No. 26 Dated 01.05.2026 The present contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite parties, alleging their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order dated 27.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3279 of 2017. On perusal of the records, it appears that the present contempt petition is pending before this Court since January, 2020, in which, various orders have been passed from time to time. On perusal of the said orders, it would be evident that the Court’s intention was that the parties should amicably resolve the issue, in question. The opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 were the tenants, having shops at Dey Lodge situated near Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi. The petitioner i.e. M/s. Park Sarvamangala Projects Pvt. Ltd., out of an agreement, executed with the owners of the said land, developed and constructed a new building premises, named as ‘Mall De-Core’. Thereafter, certain dispute arose between opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 as well as one Md. Jawed and the petitioner herein since the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was removing the existing shops of opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 and of Md. Jawed as those were found situated over the part of the land of the said premises donated to Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The said dispute led to the filing of writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3279 of 2017 by the aforesaid three persons. This Court, vide order dated 27.03.2018, disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations and directions: - (i) The respondent No.5 (the petitioner herein) shall provide suitable space to the petitioners in the new building premises within a period of six weeks from today. (ii) The petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 (opposite party nos. 5 & 6 herein) shall forthwith sign the MOU with the respondent No.5 and voluntarily vacate the shops presently occupied by them positively within a period of four weeks after execution of the MOU. (iii) The respondent No.5 shall ensure that after execution of the MOU with the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, they are suitably adjusted in the new building premises without any undue delay so as not to cause harm to their business in the transition period. (iv) If any dispute arises with regard to overlapping of apportionment in the financial liability between the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 with regard to adjustment of existing tenants including the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement dated 30.03.2006 executed between the husband of the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 5, they are at liberty to take appropriate recourse against each other in accordance with law. (v) After the petitioners vacate the old shop premises as per the aforesaid observations and directions, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is free to demolish the same. It would be, thus, evident from the aforesaid observations and directions that the petitioner herein was directed to provide suitable space to the opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 and Md. Jawed in the new building premises i.e. ‘Mall De-Core’. Another direction of this Court was that after the said persons were given the space in the new premises, they had to vacate their old shop premises and the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was then free to demolish the same. Now, the dispute is that the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 are not satisfied with the places offered by the petitioner to them in the new premises and therefore, they have not vacated their old shops. So far as Md. Jawed is concerned, he has already occupied a new shop offered to him by the petitioner in the new premises. Various affidavits have been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein as well as opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 and on perusal of the same, it would appear that they have their own justifications in not getting the issue resolved, as a result of which, opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 are still occupying the old shop premises. These are on the boundary of the old premises and is outside the new shop premises i.e. ‘Mall De- Core’. The contention of the petitioner herein is that various shops were offered to the opposite party Nos. 5 & 6, but, they are not ready to occupy the same, whereas the contention of the opposite party Nos. 5 & 6 is that the shops in ‘Mall De-Core’, which are being offered by the petitioner to them, is awkwardly located and if they occupy the same, their business will be badly affected. Be that as it may. On consideration of the said aspects and keeping in view the order dated 27.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3279 of 2017, it appears that such issue cannot be looked into or resolved under the contempt jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, there is no need to further proceed in the contempt petition. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite parties, including the opposite party Nos.5 & 6 is hereby, dropped. The contempt petition is accordingly, disposed of. The parties are however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as available under the law for redressal of the subsistence grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Dated 01/05/2026 BS/- Uploaded