'Not Passing Contempt Orders Being Perceived As Weakness': Jharkhand HC Bars Use Of Ranchi Terminal Market Yard For Election Purposes

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the Terminal Market Yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi, shall not be used for any election-related purposes, and warned that officers would be held responsible in the event of any breach of the Court's directions.A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a public interest litigation raising repeated disruption of business activities at the market yard due to its use for storing Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), setting up counting centres and other election-related activities.BackgroundThe petitioner complained that, despite several orders passed by the High Court from time to time, the Terminal Market Yard, Pandra, Ranchi continued to be occupied for election purposes, resulting in the temporary eviction and dislocation of shopkeepers and godown keepers who have been carrying on business at the premises for several years. It was contended that such disruption was without authority of law and amounted to high-handed action by the authorities. The petitioner further submitted that its members were mostly small shopkeepers and godown owners, whose livelihood was severely affected by the repeated displacement.The Court referred to an affidavit dated 06 January 2026 filed by Vivek Kumar Suman, Deputy Election Officer, Ranchi. In paragraph 7, reference was made to correspondence and a statement that only autonomous colleges in the respective districts were being used for counting of votes and as strong rooms. In paragraph 8, it was stated that the answering respondents were “well aware and much vigilant” of the earlier orders passed by the High Court, including the order dated 11 December 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6137 of 2018.The Bench observed that although there was no categorical statement in the affidavit, its tenor indicated that there was no proposal to utilise the market yard for election purposes. This was particularly so because the affidavit expressly acknowledged compliance with earlier judicial directions. The Bench observed that if the respondents claimed to be aware of and vigilant about the earlier orders, it was obvious that they could not, in defiance of those directions, continue to insist upon using the market yard for election purposes and thereby disrupt the business activities of small shopkeepers and godown keepers.The High Court noted that, even assuming there was any ambiguity in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Election Officer, Ranchi, the respondents were now clearly directed not to utilise the market yard at Pandra, Ranchi for any election-related purposes, so as to avoid disruption of business activities. The Court further observed that the records revealed that, despite repeated directions issued earlier, the authorities had continued to insist on using the market yard premises at Pandra for storage of EVMs and counting of votes, thereby completely disrupting the business activities of the petitioners' members, who are small shopkeepers and godown keepers, for several days. The Court noted:“Considering that this was a matter of elections, which are always matters of State and National importance, no precipitative orders were passed by this Court, nor was any contempt action initiated against the officer for defying the orders of this Court. This, unfortunately, appears to be perceived as a weakness of this Branch. The indulgence shown was certainly not weakness, but it was out of regard for practical and pragmatic considerations. This Court also felt that some reasonable time should be granted to make alternative arrangements… Unfortunately, for the last six to seven years, the State has made no serious efforts to make alternate arrangements, possibly on account of the impression that no precipitative orders would be made by this Court, once the elections are announced and a situation of 'fait accompli' is presented before the Court. This time, the petitioner has approached the Court well in advance…”The Bench observed that, considering the apparent breaches in the past, responsibility must be clearly fixed on the highest officers concerned. The High Court ultimately directed that the Chief Secretary, State of Jharkhand, the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer shall be jointly and severally responsible for ensuring strict compliance with its directions restraining the use of the market yard premises at Pandra, Ranchi for any election-related purposes.Title: The Federation of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.Case Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 5675 of 2018.Appearance: Mr. Salona Mittal, Mrs. Lavanya Gadodia Mittal, Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Mr. Arya Vardhan Singh, Ms. Divya Choudhary and Mr. Sourav K. Jha appeared for the petitioner.Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Mr. Prakhar Harit, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. Sharon Toppo, Mrs. Richa Sanchita and Ms. Rishita Singh appeared for...

'Not Passing Contempt Orders Being Perceived As Weakness': Jharkhand HC Bars Use Of Ranchi Terminal Market Yard For Election Purposes

Rushil Batra

Tags