Mr. Bishu Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand

The State of Jharkhand, through The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Secretariat, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand -834004 The National Highways Authority of India (Ministry of Road 2. Transport and Highways, Govt. of India) G 5&6, Dabri Gurgaon Rd, Sector 10 Dwarka, P.O.+P.S.- Dwarka, Delhi, 110075 The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, Room No. 112, P.O. Ranchi, 3. P.S. Ranchi Sadar, 1st Floor, Block "B", D.C. Office, Kutchery Rd, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001 4. M/s RKD CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD B-20, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, P.O. + P.S. Bhuabaneswar-751024, Phone-0674-3056565 --------- …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Appellant: For the State: For the NHAI: For Resp. No.4:

--------- Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to AAG-IA Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 30.06.2025 Pronounced on: 4.7.2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dt. 3.7.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6550 of

The appellant was the owner of a mango orchid. Adjacent to the said mango orchid, a stone crusher unit was set up two and half years prior to the filing of the Writ petition.

It is contended by the appellant that the dust emitted by the stone crusher unit did not allow the growth of the mangoes properly and this -1 of 5- damaged his livelihood and income. He contends that in spite of several representations given by him to the respondents no action was taken against the stone crusher unit (4th respondent).

The appellant had filed W.P.(C) No. 6550 of 2023 by impleading the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary as the 1st respondent, the National Highways Authority of India as the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as the 3rd respondent, and the stone crusher unit as the 4th respondent in the Writ petition.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant in the Writ petition that the right to earn livelihood is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that any infringement thereof is amenable to the writ jurisdiction and the appellant is entitled to approach this Court claiming damages/ compensation.

Reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant in the Writ petition on Nilabati Behera (Smt) Vs. State of Orissa and others1 and Olga Tellis & Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others.2

The respondents contended before the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition that the claim of the appellant needs proper assessment and determination which cannot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there would be several disputed question of fact which would arise in the determination of the amount of damages.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ petition stating that in a case of pecuniary loss, a party who is claiming such damages needs to be established nature of loss and quantum of such loss, and he has to