Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed that the Terminal Market Yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi shall not be used for any election-related activities, including storage of Electronic Voting Machines and vote-counting arrangements, as such use disrupts business operations at the yard. The Court passed the order in a public interest petition complaining of repeated displacement of traders and godown holders whenever the premises were taken over for election work. It further held senior State and election authorities jointly responsible for ensuring compliance, warning that any breach would attract accountability.

The petition was instituted as a public interest litigation complaining of the continued use of the Terminal Market Yard, Pandra, Ranchi for election-related purposes, including storage of Electronic Voting Machines and establishment of counting centres. The petitioner contended that despite repeated judicial directions issued over several years, the authorities continued to occupy the market yard during elections, resulting in temporary eviction and disruption of business activities of shopkeepers and godown keepers operating from the premises. It was asserted that such actions were undertaken without authority of law and adversely affected the livelihood of traders and other persons dependent on the market yard.

Also Read: Arbitration Act | S.37 Appellate Court Cannot Re-Work Or Recompute Damages In Appeal Unless S.34 Court’s Award Is Arbitrary Or Perverse; Supreme Court

During the proceedings, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the election authorities stating that a committee had been constituted to identify alternative premises for election purposes and that several locations were under consideration. The affidavit referred to earlier orders of the Court and indicated that the authorities were aware of and vigilant about compliance with those directions. However, the affidavit did not expressly state that the Pandra Market Yard would no longer be used for election purposes, which formed the basis of the petitioner’s continuing grievance.

The Court observed that “despite several orders made by this court from time to time, the Terminal Market Yard, Pandra, Ranchi is insisted upon being occupied and used for keeping Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), setting up counting centres and other election related activities”, resulting in disruption of business activities of traders.

Referring to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Election Officer, the Court recorded that “although there is no categorical statement, the tenor of the affidavit leads us to believe that there is no proposal to utilise the market yard at Pandra for election purposes”. The Bench noted that the affidavit specifically stated that the authorities were “well aware and much vigilant of the earlier orders passed by this Court”, including the order dated 11.12.2018 concerning the same market yard.

The Court stated that “if the answering Respondents claim that they are well aware and much vigilant of the earlier orders… it is obvious that they will not, in defiance of the directions contained in the said order… continue to insist upon using the market yard at Pandra for election purposes”.

Noting the history of non-compliance, the Court observed that “records disclose that despite previous directions, Respondents have been insisting upon using the market yard premises at Pandra… thereby completely disrupting the business activities”. The Bench further recorded its concern that “this process has been ongoing for the last five to six years, perhaps only to avoid compliance with the clear and categorical directions issued by this court”.

The Court also remarked that “the indulgence shown was certainly not weakness, but it was out of regard for practical and pragmatic considerations”, while expressing dissatisfaction with the continued failure of the State to make alternate arrangements.

Also Read: Relationship Not A License To Invade Partner’s Dignity And Privacy: Jharkhand High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Circulating Obscene Content Via Fake Email/Social Media Accounts

The Court directed that “we now clearly direct the Respondents not to utilise the market yard at Pandra, Ranchi, for any election purposes, thereby disrupting the business activities. Therefore, we repeat our orders and without mincing any words, direct the Respondents not to utilise the market yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi, for election purposes”.

“The Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, the State Election Commissioner, and the Chief Electoral Officer shall be jointly and severally responsible for implementing the directions we have now issued regarding the non-utilisation of the market yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi, for election purposes”, and “if there is any breach, these officers will be held responsible”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate; Mrs. Lavanya Gadodia Mittal, Advocate; Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate; Mr. Arya Vardhan Singh, Advocate; Ms. Divya Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. Sourav K. Jha, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I; Mr. Abhinay Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-I; Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate; Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate; Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate; Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate; Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate; Ms. Rishita Singh, Advocate

Case Title: The Federation of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. State of Jharkhand & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:1723-DB
Case Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 5675 of 2018
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Rajesh Shankar