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.

Sanjeev Arora and ors Vs. Collectariate

Sanjeev Arora and ors vs Collectariate

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 17, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972523

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

Sanjeev Arora and ors

Respondent

Collectariate

Excerpt

.....no. 6171/2012 and on the same grounds, this court had allowed their prayer and directed them to approach the same official respondent of the state for release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods by individual petitioners. it is submitted -2- that consequent thereto, goods have been released in respect of those petitioners as well. learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in other similar matter being w.p.c no. 2243 of 2013, on similar facts, this court has allowed the said petitioners to approach the deputy commissioner, ranchi / sub divisional officer, ranchi for the release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods produced by the individual petitioners which are said to be lying in the cold storage. counsel for the respondent state submits that the request of these petitioners if found genuine, will be considered in accordance with law pursuant to their producing proof of the ownership of those goods said to be lying in the cold storage. in that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by allowing these petitioners to approach the respondent nos. 2 / 3 - deputy commissioner, ranchi / sub divisional officer, ranchi for the release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods produced by individual petitioners which are said to be lying in the cold storage. respondent nos. 2 / 3 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of application on behalf of the individual petitioners. (aparesh kumar singh, j.) a. mohanty

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C). No.3309 of 2013 Sanjeev Arora & others .... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ..... Respondents ---------- CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner :Mr. Ayush Aditya For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Singh, J.C. to S.C.II 02/17.06.2013 This writ petition is being disposed of today after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent State, as no notices are required to be issued to other respondents since the petitioners do not pray for any relief against respondent nos. 5 to 8. According to the petitioners in the writ petition, they are some of the owners of the goods which are kept in the cold storage which are sealed by the respondent district administration pursuant to the order dated 7th August 2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi. It is contended on behalf of these petitioners that dispute is inter-se between BISCOMAUN (Respondent No.

5) and the respondent no. 8 who is the owner of the cold storage which is a subject matter of other writ petition being WPC No. 5141/12. However, it is submitted that perishable goods belonging to these petitioners, are likely to suffer irreparable damage and decay as they have been kept under lock pursuant to the sealing of the cold storage in question. It is submitted that these petitioners have no liability against the respondent no. 5 and they have made application before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.

2) for release of those goods, however the same are not being responded to. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar circumstances, in respect of dealer of M/s Amul Products, respondents have allowed release of the goods after preparing inventory of the same which were kept in the said godown of the respondent no. 8 under seal upon orders of the respondent no.

5. It is further submitted that similar other dealers of such goods had also approached this court in W.P.(C) No. 6171/2012 and on the same grounds, this Court had allowed their prayer and directed them to approach the same official respondent of the State for release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods by individual petitioners. It is submitted -2- that consequent thereto, goods have been released in respect of those petitioners as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in other similar matter being W.P.C No. 2243 of 2013, on similar facts, this Court has allowed the said petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi / Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi for the release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods produced by the individual petitioners which are said to be lying in the cold storage. Counsel for the respondent State submits that the request of these petitioners if found genuine, will be considered in accordance with law pursuant to their producing proof of the ownership of those goods said to be lying in the cold storage. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by allowing these petitioners to approach the respondent nos. 2 / 3 - Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi / Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi for the release of the goods upon proper verification and preparation of inventory and proof of ownership of the said goods produced by individual petitioners which are said to be lying in the cold storage. Respondent nos. 2 / 3 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of application on behalf of the individual petitioners. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial