Singhania Agro, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at Chandwa v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANANDA SEN
- Neutral citation
- 2026:JHHC:24670
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 17th August, 2026 R.S./S.K.C Uploaded on 19/08/2026. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Judgment
Singhania Agro, a proprietorship firm having its registered office at Chandwa Shivsagar, P.O & P.S Rohtas, District Rohtas, Bihar through its Proprietor Rajesh Prasad, S/O Ramji Prasad, R/O Ward No. 13, Bejaja Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, P.O Daudnagar, P.S & District Aurangabad, Bihar Versus .... Petitioner(s).
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, having its office at JSFC Bhawan, Kadru, P.O & P.S Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, , District Ranchi Jharkhand 5. The District Manager, Palamu, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Palamu at Daltonganj, P.O & P.S Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ …… For the Petitioner(s) For the State For the Resp-JSFC : Mr. Amit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate …...... 07/ 17.08.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of. Thus, since the prayer of the writ petition is only for disposal of the representation, this writ petition has become infructuous.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are disputing the claim of the petitioner, but such dispute is ornamental and without any basis. He submits that there are several evidences and documents to suggest that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount.
Considering the submission of the parties, I am of the opinion that there are factual disputes between the parties which cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court/Commercial Court for claiming the outstanding dues.
Operative part
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 17th August, 2026 R.S./S.K.C Uploaded on 19/08/2026.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.