2026:JHHC:2044 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2019 …… Ajay Kumar Sah, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Badri Sah, resident of village-Kutmu, P.O. Kutmu, P.S. Vishrampur, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Palamau, P.O.+P.S. Medninagar, Dist.-Palamau, Jharkhand. 3. The Chairman Zila Parishad Palamau, P.O.+P.S. Medninagar, Dist.-Palamau, Jharkhand. 4. The Secretary, Zila Parishad Palamau, P.O.+P.S. Medninagar, Dist.-Palamau, Jharkhand. 5. Anchal Adhikari, P.O.+P.S. Visrampur, Dist-Palamau, Jharkhand. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kr Mehta, Adv For the Res.-Zila Parishad : Mr. Krishna Murari, Adv For the Res.-State : Mr. J.F.Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V …… 14/27.01.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner paying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the order dated 22.01.2019; whereby allotment of multipurpose building has been cancelled and the same was in violation of agreement dated 18.09.2015; whereby the respondent-Authorities allotted the multipurpose building to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 22.01.2019; whereby the allotment of the building has been cancelled. From the order-sheet, it appears that in the year 2019 itself, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application 2026:JHHC:2044 2 seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 22.01.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent. The said interlocutory application was disposed of in view of the fact that the petitioner has already vacated the premises and handed over the keys; therefore, the Court did not pass any order. After a lapse of six years, the petitioner has filed another interlocutory application seeking stay of the order dated 04/12/2025, whereby an advertisement has been issued for the purpose of allotment of the said multi-purpose building. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that after the petitioner vacated the said premises, the same was run by another contractor. As per para 22 of the first counter-affidavit; after four years, the respondents came out with different advertisements inviting the interested parties. 4. Now, at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the earlier interlocutory application filed by the petitioner being I.A. No. 4721 of 2019, was disposed of on the ground that before hearing of the said interlocutory application, the premises in question was vacated by the petitioner, as observed by this Court in its order dated 25/01/2021. Now staying the operation of fresh advertisement, which has been prayed in this interlocutory application would not suffice justice; rather, it would create 2026:JHHC:2044 3 further chaos. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is rejected. 5. As stated herein above, enough time has elapsed from the day when the petitioner has vacated the premises in question. As such, this court is not interested in passing any order with regard to Annexure-4. However, since the Government came out with a fresh advertisement for allotment, the petitioner would be at liberty to participate in the same. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J) 27.01.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded 04.02.2026