2026:JHHC:1086 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 342 of 2019 …… 1. Sri Harsh Trigunait aged 28 years son of Sri. Amlendu Trigunait resident of village Kanchapur House No.1, P.O Kanchapur, P.S. Katrs, District-Dhanbad. 2. Sri Onkareshwar Trigunait aged 32 years son of Sri Paresh Trigunait resident of village-Rampur, Kanchapur, House No. 730, 284, Rampur Tola-1, P.O. Angarpathra, P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad. 3. Sri Harsh Trigunait aged 31 years son of Sri Shyamal Ch. Trigunait resident of village-Rampur, Kanchapur, House No. 730, 284, Rampur Tola-1 P.O. Angarpathra, P.S. Katras, District-Dhanbad. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through Chairman- Cum-Managing Director, having his office at Koyla Bhawan Koylanagar, P.O., P.S.& District-Dhanbad. 2. The General Manager, Kapuria Block, Kapuria Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kapuria & P.S.Mahuda, District- Dhanbad. 3. The Project Officer, Kapuria Block, Kapuria Project of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Kapuria & P.S.Mahuda, District- Dhanbad. 4. The General Manager, W.J.Area, Moonidih of M/s. BCCL,P.O. Moonidih & P.S.Mahuda, District-Dhanbad 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & Dist- Dhanbad. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shray Mishra, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Adv Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I …… 22/13.01.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the letter dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent No. 4; whereby duty of the petitioners have been stopped with respect to the 2026:JHHC:1086 2 provisional appointment of the petitioner to the post of Surface Trainee Cat-I against 6.46 acres of land in Mouza Kanchanpur (Thana No. 278) in the district of Dhanbad. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards Annexure-4 and submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Further, the main content of the impugned order is that the petitioners are making hindrance in starting of the project, however the petitioners are nowhere concerned with regard to the project. He further submits that the petitioners have not even received the compensation for the land acquired by the respondent-BCCL. Accordingly, the concerned respondents may be directed to reconsider the issue of the petitioners with regard to appointment as well as monetary compensation. 3. He lastly submits that admittedly, the petitioners were provisionally appointed in lieu of land which was acquired by BCCL for Kapuria Project; accordingly, the instant petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners that if the petitioners will approach the Project Officer to put forth their grievance, the same may be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on its counter-affidavit, however could not defend the impugned order on the issue that the same is passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and upon perusal of the impugned order; the impugned letter 2026:JHHC:1086 3 dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside, inasmuch as, admittedly, the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the main ground for stopping the petitioners from duty is of making hinderance in the work of Kapuria Project. However, the statement of the petitioners cannot be ignored that they are not the only persons who are responsible for hinderance in the project. 6. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the petitioners to approach the Project Officer-respondent No.3. The petitioners shall approach the 3rd respondent along with their contention with regard to compensation etc. and the concerned respondent after receiving the said claim shall pass an appropriate order after giving them an opportunity in accordance with law, rule and regulation of the company. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A.s if any also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J) 13.01.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded 28.01.2026