High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 07 JH CK 0029

Devi Lal Mahto vs Director, Damodar Valley Corporation

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 19 July 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Kumar Rai, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 74 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 342 words

Arun Kumar Rai, J

1.

The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of the writ petition (C) No. 2983 of 2020, to its original file after recalling the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a writ petition being writ petition No. 2983 of 2020 was filed with a prayer to provide full details of persons whose lands were acquired by Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribagh at Chandrapura along with details of employment and rehabilitation given and also the name of the families who have been left to suffer and the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to take proper recourse.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a prayer for withdrawal was made without taking authorization from the petitioner and in absence of such authorization/suggestion, the counsel was accorded withdrawal of writ petition, which has caused irreparable loss as issue of disclosure of information sought by the petitioner.

3.

None appears on behalf of opposite parties.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5.

It seems that the prayer was made on behalf of writ petitioner in writ petition (C) No. 2983 of 2020, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail proper recourse under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was accorded by the Court.

6.

But now, petitioner is making assertion that there was no authorization from his side to learned Advocate to withdraw the above-said writ petition without any other corroborative material. This Court feels that if such type of assertion that too without any corroborative material be considered, then there would be a chaotic situation before Judicial Administration.

7.

This Court is of considered view that if really the counsel has not acted in the interest of the petitioner or without the authorization or instruction of the petitioner, the necessary remedy lies elsewhere. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merit.

8.

Accordingly, the instant C.M.P. No. 74 of 2021 is hereby dismissed.