Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondent-Mango Notified Area Committee to forthwith take steps in terms of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 for removing unauthorized hoardings put up by the private respondent at four locations viz. behind Mango Police Post (two hoardings), near Mango Golchakkar/Roundabout (one hoarding) and near the fist market adjacent to the old Mango Bridge (one hoarding).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner for installing the hoardings by the Mango Notified Area Committee but subsequently for the same locations, at the place where the petitioner has installed the hoardings, respondent no. 4 has been allotted work for installing hoarding by respondent no. 2 in consultation with Tata Steel, therefore there is conflict of interest of petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that he has valid work order, therefore, he has got valid right to install the hoardings.

A.C to learned S.C. (L & C) appearing for the State of Jharkhand submits that there is disputed question of fact about the area and location where the hoardings have been installed, therefore, it would be just and proper to remit the matter to Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the issue.

This Court, after hearing the parties and considering the submissions as has been recorded herein above, is of the view that the whole dispute is regarding area/jurisdiction of the Mango Notified Area Committee and Tata Steel for the purpose of installation of hoardings. The petitioner is claiming that he has been directed to install the hoarding in pursuance to valid work order in the area falling under Mango Notified Area Committee whereas respondent no. 4 is claiming that the area is falling under the jurisdiction of Tata Steel, which is disputed question of fact.

In view of aforesaid disputed question of fact, the same is not fit to be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view thereof, this Court refrains itself from exercising its extraordinary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deem it fit and proper to direct the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum to adjudicate the issue after taking appropriate decision by passing speaking order in this regard within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.