Jharkhand High Court
WPC/7514/2026 of SULEKHA DEVI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 7514 of 2026 --- Sulekha Devi, wife of Ajit Prasad Jaishwal, resident of Hutti Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 7514 of 2026
---
Sulekha Devi, wife of Ajit Prasad Jaishwal, resident of Hutti Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumri, District- Giridih
4. The Circle Officer, Pirtanr, District- Giridih
…. … Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shivam Kumar, A.C. to A.G.
Order No. 03
Dated: 28.09.2026
1. The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition is that the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih (the respondent no. 2), is not ensuring the implementation of his own order dated 28.04.2025 passed in compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.10.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 2664 of 2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2664 of 2024 seeking direction upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for constructing a government pond over her raiyati land appertaining to plot no. 93, Khata No. 58 measuring an area of 3.78 acres, Mouza- Kathwara, P.S.- Pirtand, District-Giridih. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2024 giving liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation along with relevant documents on the said issue before the respondent no. 2 who, in turn, was directed to get an enquiry conducted and to take an appropriate informed decision after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other concerned parties.
3. It is further submitted that in compliance of the said order of this Court, the respondent no. 2 initiated a proceeding and passed order dated 28.04.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the present writ petition. The said order of the respondent no. 2 clearly mentions that the Executing Agency comprising of the then Soil Conservation Officer, Giridih, Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Giridih, Junior Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Giridih and the then Chairman and Secretary of the Beneficiary Committee should have undertaken the renovation of pond at the proposed plot, i.e., plot no. 81 of the said Khata, however due to their negligence, the said work was carried out at plot no. 93 of the said Khata which belonged to the petitioner. In the order dated 28.04.2025, the respondent no. 2 has also issued certain directions including filling-up the dug part of the petitioner’s land. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order dated 28.04.2025, no further action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 in this regard which has compelled her to prefer the present writ petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the issue raised in the present writ petition as well as the nature of prayer made in the same, this Court is of the view that it is the duty of the authority who passes an order, to ensure implementation of the same in accordance with law.
5. Since in the present case, the respondent no. 2 in terms with the direction of this Court, has passed an order dated 28.04.2025, it is the duty of the said respondent to ensure that the direction contained in his order is duly implemented. The orders passed by the administrative authorities are not mere formalities, rather the same are also required to be taken to their logical conclusion.
6. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not appreciate filing of writ petitions praying inter alia to direct the authorities to implement/execute their own orders. It is the solemn duty of the administrative authorities to effectively get the orders passed by them executed/implemented so that the people at large may have faith in the lawful proceedings drawn by the authorities.
7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondent no. 2 shall ensure implementation of his order dated 28.04.2025 in accordance with law without any further delay.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) September 28, 2026 Ritesh/ Uploaded on 28.09.2026