Pramod Agarwal Vs. Mining Area Development Authority and ors

Pramod Agarwal vs Mining Area Development Authority and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 15, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972068

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/972068
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Apr 15, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pramod Agarwal

Respondent

Mining Area Development Authority and ors

Excerpt

.....haveremaineddormantandsilent,despitetheorderpassedbythiscourt inearlierwritpetitionbeingw.p.(c)no.3864of2012dated15thoctober, 2012.2. learnedcounselforoppositepartyno.1submittedthatadetailed counteraffidavithasbeenfiledandtheplanshavenowbeensanctioned, today. it is also submitted that opposite party no. 1 has tendered unconditionalapologyinparagraph1andinsubsequentparagraphs.3. havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe facts andcircumstancesof the case, itappearsthatthe opposite parties havedeliberatelycommittedbreachoftheorderpassedbythiscourt.the mapswhichwerepresentedbytheoriginalpetitionerintheyear2011for the construction of the dwelling unit were neither approved nor disapprovedand,therefore,thew.p.(c)no.3864of2012waspreferredby thisapplicant.thiscourtpassedanorderdated15thoctober,2012thatthe decisionmustbetakenbytherespondents,inaccordancewithlawwithina periodoffourweeks.nosuchdecisionhasbeentaken,asperthedirection ofthiscourtandthisapplicanthasnooption,buttofilethiscontempt application.thememoofthiscontemptapplicationwasalsoservedupon the learned counsel for the opposite parties on 17th january,2013, but, oppositepartyno.1hasnotcompliedwiththeorderpassedbythiscourt intheearlierwritpetition.infact,thereishugepriceescalationwhichwill havetobebornebythepetitioner,unnecessarily,whichmayrunintofew 2 hundredthousands,but,asthecounselforoppositepartyno.1issaying thatthiswillnotberepeated,atthistime,thiscourtisnottakingaction againstoppositepartyno.1underthecontemptofcourtsact.4. inviewoftheaforesaidfacts,thiscontemptapplicationis,hereby, disposedofastheorderisnowcompliedwithatmuchbelatedstage.such typeofattitudeofoppositepartyno.1shouldbeavoidedsothatcitizens maynothavecometothiscourt,againandagain. (d.n.patel,j.) ajay

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cont.Case(Civil)No.55of2013 PramodAgarwal . Petitioner Versus 1.KrishnaKishore,theChairmancumManagingDirectorof MineralAreaDevelopmentAuthority,Dhanbad 2.StateofJharkhand .... OppositeParties CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL ForthePetitioner :Mr.Shailesh,Advocate ForOppositePartyNo.1 :Mr.BhaweshKumar,Advocate FortheState :J.C.toG.A. 03/Dated:15 th April,2013 1. Learnedcounselappearingforthepetitionersubmittedthattheplans for the construction of residential unit was placed before the opposite partiesintheyear2011andfornojustifiablereason,theoppositeparties haveremaineddormantandsilent,despitetheorderpassedbythisCourt inearlierwritpetitionbeingW.P.(C)No.3864of2012dated15thOctober, 2012.

2. Learnedcounselforoppositepartyno.1submittedthatadetailed counteraffidavithasbeenfiledandtheplanshavenowbeensanctioned, today. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 1 has tendered unconditionalapologyinparagraph1andinsubsequentparagraphs.

3. Havingheardlearnedcounselforboththesidesandlookingtothe facts andcircumstancesof the case, itappearsthatthe opposite parties havedeliberatelycommittedbreachoftheorderpassedbythisCourt.The mapswhichwerepresentedbytheoriginalpetitionerintheyear2011for the construction of the dwelling unit were neither approved nor disapprovedand,therefore,theW.P.(C)No.3864of2012waspreferredby thisapplicant.ThisCourtpassedanorderdated15thOctober,2012thatthe decisionmustbetakenbytherespondents,inaccordancewithlawwithina periodoffourweeks.Nosuchdecisionhasbeentaken,asperthedirection ofthisCourtandthisapplicanthasnooption,buttofilethiscontempt application.Thememoofthiscontemptapplicationwasalsoservedupon the learned counsel for the opposite parties on 17th January,2013, but, oppositepartyno.1hasnotcompliedwiththeorderpassedbythisCourt intheearlierwritpetition.Infact,thereishugepriceescalationwhichwill havetobebornebythepetitioner,unnecessarily,whichmayrunintofew 2 hundredthousands,but,asthecounselforoppositepartyno.1issaying thatthiswillnotberepeated,atthistime,thisCourtisnottakingaction againstoppositepartyno.1undertheContemptofCourtsAct.

4. Inviewoftheaforesaidfacts,thiscontemptapplicationis,hereby, disposedofastheorderisnowcompliedwithatmuchbelatedstage.Such typeofattitudeofoppositepartyno.1shouldbeavoidedsothatcitizens maynothavecometothisCourt,againandagain. (D.N.Patel,J.) Ajay

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Pramod Agarwal vs Mining Area Development Authority and ors Same Subject Education