Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sukhlal and Sukhlal Jee Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors

Sukhlal and Sukhlal Jee vs State of Jharkhand and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 26, 2013
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1024846

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhlal and Sukhlal Jee

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors

Excerpt

inthehighcourtofjharkhandatranchi w.p .(pil)no.2590of2012 sukhlal@sukhlaljee ... ... petitioner versus thestateofjharkhand&ors. ... ... respondents coram :honebletheactingchiefjustice :hon'blemr.justiceshreechandrashekhar forthepetitioner :mr.shabhakarmishra,advocate forthestate :mr.indrajitsinha,advocate th 12/dated:26 august,2013 perd.n.patel,a.c.j.1. this writ petition has been preferred challenging the tender issuedbythemunicipalcorporationofdhanbadvideadvertisement no.1057 dated 14th march, 2012 for collecting fees for vehicle parking.2. havingheardthecounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe averments made in this public interest litigation and the affidavit filedbytherespondents,itappearsthatthiswritpetitionhasbeen preferredchallengingthetenderissuedbythemunicipalcorporation ofdhanbadvideadvertisementno.1057dated14thmarch,2012.the saidtenderwasissuedforoneyear.thus,theperiodofoneyearhas already been over. moreover, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerisunabletoestablishthatthereisanencroachmentonthe footpathalso.thus,itappearstobeaprivateinterestlitigation.the action of the dhanbad municipal corporation appears to be for regulatingthetrafficjam,forwhich,systematicparkingisrequiredfor theplaceallotedforthesaidpurposeandtomanagethisaffair,token amountistobecollectedbythepersontowhomthecontractisgiven.3. weseenoreasontointerferewiththispublicinterestlitigation. thereisnosubstanceinthepublicinterestlitigation,andhence,itis herebydismissed. (d.n.patel,a.c.j.) (shreechandrashekhar,j.) manish/r.k.

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI W.P .(PIL)No.2590of2012 Sukhlal@SukhlalJee ... ... Petitioner Versus TheStateofJharkhand&Ors. ... ... Respondents CORAM :HONEBLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE :HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR ForthePetitioner :Mr.ShabhakarMishra,Advocate FortheState :Mr.IndrajitSinha,Advocate th 12/Dated:26 August,2013 PerD.N.Patel,A.C.J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the tender issuedbytheMunicipalCorporationofDhanbadvideAdvertisement No.1057 dated 14th March, 2012 for collecting fees for vehicle parking.

2. Havingheardthecounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe averments made in this Public Interest Litigation and the affidavit filedbytherespondents,itappearsthatthiswritpetitionhasbeen preferredchallengingthetenderissuedbytheMunicipalCorporation ofDhanbadvideAdvertisementNo.1057dated14thMarch,2012.The saidtenderwasissuedforoneyear.Thus,theperiodofoneyearhas already been over. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerisunabletoestablishthatthereisanencroachmentonthe footpathalso.Thus,itappearstobeaPrivateInterestLitigation.The action of the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation appears to be for regulatingthetrafficjam,forwhich,systematicparkingisrequiredfor theplaceallotedforthesaidpurposeandtomanagethisaffair,token amountistobecollectedbythepersontowhomthecontractisgiven.

3. WeseenoreasontointerferewiththisPublicInterestLitigation. ThereisnosubstanceinthePublicInterestLitigation,andhence,itis herebydismissed. (D.N.Patel,A.C.J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Manish/R.K.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial