Mail News Service
Jamshedpur, Nov 26: The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday heard Writ Petition No. 2078/2018, Rakesh Jha vs State of Jharkhand, before a Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar.
During the proceedings, the Court expressed strong displeasure over the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) failing for the third consecutive time to submit the details it had been specifically directed to furnish.
Earlier, the Court had instructed JNAC to file an affidavit clearly stating the actions taken against individuals who had encroached upon designated parking spaces and against builders responsible for illegal constructions.
The Court had also ordered that these details be presented in a tabular format.
Additionally, JNAC was directed to disclose the list of buildings that had been granted completion certificates and those that had not.
The Court further sought the names of buildings that had been denied completion certificates but had still been provided electricity and water connections.
JNAC was also required to clarify whether such buildings were paying electricity tariff at commercial rates or normal rates.
Despite these explicit directions, JNAC failed to provide the required information, leading the Court to remark that the agency had committed “direct contempt” of its orders.
During the hearing, JNAC’s counsel informed the Bench that the agency had initiated an encroachment-removal drive, imposed fines, and written to Tata Steel’d subsidiary Jusco questioning why electricity and water were issued to buildings lacking completion certificates.
The Court immediately questioned why Tata Steel/Jusco, despite having knowledge of municipal laws, had not disconnected utilities to illegal constructions.
The Bench also demanded to know when JNAC had written to Tata Steel/Jusco directing them to cut off electricity and water supply to such buildings.
As the counsel could not satisfactorily answer, the Court turned to the petitioner’s counsel for the next steps.
When asked how much time they required to file their rejoinder, the petitioner’s counsel requested three days.
The Court, however, granted seven days for filing the affidavit and directed that the matter be listed for hearing immediately thereafter.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Akhilesh Srivastava and Neha Agrawal.
