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.

Sunil Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Sunil Kumar Singh and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Aug 11, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/521596

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
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P. (S) No. 3705 of 2004
Subject
Service

Case Summary

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

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Service Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Kumar Singh and ors.

Advocate Ajit Kumar and; D.K. Pathak, Advs.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Advocate B.S. Lal, AAG

Legal References

Acts
Service Law
Reported In
[2005(1)JCR93(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard the parties.2. the parties agree that this case may be disposed off in terms of order dated 10.12.2003, passed in wps no. 5989 of 2003 (annexure-15).3. accordingly the following order is being passed.4. in this application, the order as contained in annexure-9 dated 29.8.1998 is under challenge, whereby the direction was made to cancel the appointment of 382 employees by issue of letter as contained in memo. no. 6255, dated 29.8.1998. this very order was under challenge before this court in a number of writ applications, being wp (s) no. 3769 of 2001 and analogous cases, which were disposed of by order dated 7.3.2003 by quashing the same very order dated 29.8.1998 with a direction to issue notice to show cause to all the affected persons.5. learned counsel appearing for the state submits that the present case is fully covered by the order passed in wp (s) no. 3769 of 2001, dated 7.3.2003 which have already been disposed of by this court.6. in that view of the matter, this application is disposed of in terms of the order dated 7.3.2003 passed in wp (s) no. 3769 of '2001 and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today. the petitioners shall file their show cause within ten day from the date of the receipt of show cause notice and thereafter the respondent shall dispose of the matter after considering their show cause within a period of one month from the date of the filing of the show cause.7. this application stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The parties agree that this case may be disposed off in terms of order dated 10.12.2003, passed in WPS No. 5989 of 2003 (Annexure-15).

3. Accordingly the following order is being passed.

4. In this application, the order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 29.8.1998 is under challenge, whereby the direction was made to cancel the appointment of 382 employees by issue of letter as contained in Memo. No. 6255, dated 29.8.1998. This very order was under challenge before this Court in a number of writ applications, being WP (S) No. 3769 of 2001 and analogous cases, which were disposed of by order dated 7.3.2003 by quashing the same very order dated 29.8.1998 with a direction to issue notice to show cause to all the affected persons.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the present case is fully covered by the order passed in WP (S) No. 3769 of 2001, dated 7.3.2003 which have already been disposed of by this Court.

6. In that view of the matter, this application is disposed of in terms of the order dated 7.3.2003 passed in WP (S) No. 3769 of '2001 and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioners shall file their show cause within ten day from the date of the receipt of show cause notice and thereafter the respondent shall dispose of the matter after considering their show cause within a period of one month from the date of the filing of the show cause.

7. This application stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial