MOTIRAJ SEWA TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SRI PARMA SINGH vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRY

2026:JHHC:14777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2655 of 2021
------
1. Motiraj Sewa Trust, the Permitted Assigns of MotiRaj Devi Trust,
through its Secretary, Sri Parma Singh, S/o Late Jung Bahadur
Singh, cum Secretary (Cambrian Public School), NRB
No.9/LD/0009, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004, R/o
Anandgram, Lane No.1, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District Ranchi.
2. Sri Parma Singh, S/o Late Jung Bahadur Singh, Secretary,
Motiraj Sewa Trust, Permitted Assigns of Moti Lal Devi Trust,
cum Secretary, Cambrian Public School, NRB No.9/LD/0009,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, 834004, R/o Anandgram
Lane No.1, P.O. & P.S. Morabadi, District Ranchi.
3. Cambrian Public School, NRB No.9/LD/0009, through its
Principal Sri Sushil Kumar S/o Sri Jagdish Singh, R/o New
Pundag, Road No.7, Jagannathvihar, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834004.
… … Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Heavy
Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,
Government of India, Udyog Bhavan, P.O. & P.S. New Delhi, New
Delhi.
2. The Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, a Government of
India Enterprise, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Plant Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Heavy Engineering
Corporation Limited, a Government of India Enterprise, Plant
Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. The Chief of Township, Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited,
a Government of India Enterprise at Plant Plaza Road, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Town Administration Division,
Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, a Government of India
Enterprise at Plant Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
6. The Estate Officer, under P.P. Act, 1971, Heavy Engineering
Corporation Limited, Room No.14-B, HQRS, Administrative
Building, Plant Plaza Road, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
… … Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC
Mr. Sonal Tiwary, AC to AG
------

1

2026:JHHC:14777
10/ 13.05.2026
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
“I. For issuance of a Writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the entire
proceedings including the order dated
23.06.2021 as contained in Letter No. P.P.
Act./ Order/2021-19 (Annexure-15) passed
by the Learned Court of the Estate Officer
under Sub section (2) of Section 5-A of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971, whereby, the
Petitioners have been directed to pay the
damages and evict the scheduled premises
within 15 days from the date of the
publication of the order and further that the
scheduled premises along with unauthorized
constructions have been directed to be taken
in possession by the Respondent Company
through an authorized Officer of the
Township Division/HEC and the cost borne by
the Company if any for such eviction shall be
recovered from the Petitioners as an arear of
Land Revenue.
II. For issuance of a further writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the Letter bearing
Ref. No: TA/REV/147/2019/2021-185 dated
29.6.2021 (Annexure-15/A), whereby the
petitioner no.2 has been directed to comply
with the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by
the Estate Officer by paying the damages and
by removing the materials and persons from
the Scheduled premises on or before
10.7.2021 failing which they will be evicted
from the premises by HEC and the cost of
such eviction shall be recovered from him.
2

2026:JHHC:14777
III. For issuance of a Writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent
Authorities not to evict the Petitioners in any
manner whatsoever or dismantle any
constructions of the Scheduled premises
(Cambrian public School, Dhurwa) without
giving the petitioners an opportunity to file
show cause and an opportunity of personal
hearing to them.
IV. For issuance of a Writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent
Authorities to enter into a long term lease of
30 or 90 years with the Petitioners and not
to charge exorbitant rent contrary to the
terms and conditions of the contract earlier
entered into between the parties and without
the mandate of law.
V. Pending final adjudication of this writ
application, implementation, operation and
all further exercises in pursuance of the
above stated order dated 23.06.2021 as
contained in Letter No. P.P. Act./ Order/
2021-19 passed by the Learned Court of The
Estate Officer under Sub Section (2) of
Section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 along
with Letter bearing Ref. No:
TA/REV/147/2019/2021-185 dated
29.6.2021 issued by the HEC under the seal
and signature of Respondent no.5, may
kindly be stayed and the Respondent
authorities or any agencies acting through
them may be restrained from taking any
coercive actions against the petitioners.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
3

2026:JHHC:14777
3. Admittedly, the aforesaid impugned order is passed
under Sub Section (2) of Section 5-A of the Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act of 1971”).
4. The order passed under Sub Section (2) of Section 5-A
of the Act of 1971, is appealable under Section 9 of the Act of
1971.
5. Since there is a remedy of Statutory Appeal available

to the petitioners and the Appellate Authority can very well
appreciate the facts and the law, I am not inclined to entertain this
writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioners should file an appropriate Appeal before
the Appellate Authority, who will dispose the Appeal after hearing
the parties on merits.
7. It is made clear that if any application under Section 5
read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act is filed, the same will be
considered sympathetically, taking into consideration that this writ
petition was filed before this Court.

8. At this stage, the petitioners pray that till the date they
file an Appeal, some interim relief be granted to them.
9. So far as the interim relief sought for by the petitioners
is concerned, once the Court declines to entertain a writ petition
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, it is impermissible to the Court to pass any interim order,
thus no interim relief can be granted in this case.
9.1. In this context, it is necessary to refer a judgment of
4

2026:JHHC:14777
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Rajendra
Kamthe Vs. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 297 , at para-6, has held as hereunder:-
“ 6. It is settled law that once the high
court, upon application of mind, declines to
entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an
efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief
is available but such remedy has not been
pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do
not survive and must draw to an end then and
there; however, in such a circumstance when no
final relief can effectively be granted on the
petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in
the nature of an interim relief [ either by
granting stay of operation of the order under
challenge or by directing status quo to be
maintained] till such time the aggrieved
petitioner approaches the alternative forum.
Such an order, as and when passed, would be
in the teeth of a Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal
Rungta.”

10. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands
disposed of .
11. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.6569 of
2026, also stands disposed of .

(ANANDA SEN, J.)
13th May, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2


Uploaded on 16.05.2026

5