P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, various prayers are made on behalf of the petitioner. Actually, they are six in number. One of the prayers was for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Narayanpur RS. case no. 6 of 1975 corresponding to G.R. No. 30 of 1975 in view of the decision allegedly taken by the Government of Jharkhand to withdraw all cases in relation to or arising out of the alleged movement for creation of a separate State of Jharkhand. Since it was felt that the grant or refusal of that prayer made, involved public interest and consequently the matter might be one which would come under Rule 34 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 that all writ petitions relating to public interest should be heard by a Division Bench, it was decided to withdraw the case to a Division Bench after the Judge to whom the case was originally assigned as per the roster could not hear the case for the reason that while being a Magistrate, he had recorded a dying declaration in relation to the crime. While constituting the Bench, Rule 35(2) of the Rules was also kept in mind and the Judge in administration of the Zone was included in the Division Bench. Since as per the dispensation in this Court for the last more than one year, public interest litigations were being heard by the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice and the Judge looking after the administration of the Zone constituted the Division Bench.
(2.) THOUGH as noticed, the writ petition contains various prayers, Mr. R.K. Jain, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. R.S. Majumdar appearing for the writ petitioner submitted before us at the hearing, that he was not pursuing any of the prayers in the writ petition other than the prayer containing a challenge to what he called the issue of a warrant for arrest by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara on 17.7.2004. Hence, it has become unnecessary for us to deal with the other aspects raised and the prayers made in the writ petition. We are concerned only with the prayer relating to the order dated 17.7.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. The matter was rather elaborately argued before us by Mr. Jain and by the learned Advocate General instructed by Government Counsel on behalf of the State.
(3.) THE short facts gatherable from the writ petition, the order sheet made available to us and the submisions at the Bar are these.;