Secretary Replaced to Protect Influential Traders
Ranchi: The issue of encroachment at the Pandra Agricultural Produce Market Committee is now evolving into a major administrative and political controversy. A list of 167 encroaching traders was submitted to the administration; orders for action were issued at the sub-divisional level; and departmental directives were also issued—yet, no action has commenced to this day. On the contrary, persistent rumors regarding the repeated removal from office of the very Secretary who took the initiative against the encroachment have rendered the entire matter even more contentious. From the Market Committee to the corridors of the administration, a single question now echoes: why, exactly, is action against these influential traders being stalled?
According to reports, on July 18, 2025, Krishna Kumar Kanhaiya—the then-Secretary of the Krishi Utpadan Bajar Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committee), Pandra, Ranchi—sent a detailed letter to the then-Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Ranchi. In this letter, while highlighting the large-scale encroachment within the Market Committee premises, he pointed out that numerous traders had extended their shops and establishments beyond their designated boundaries. By undertaking additional construction in front of, behind, and around their shops, they have encroached upon public spaces; meanwhile, the revenue collected from them continues to be levied based on outdated parameters.
The then-Secretary did not merely lodge a complaint; he also submitted documentary evidence pertaining to the entire matter to the administration. He forwarded a detailed list of 167 traders to the then-SDO of Ranchi, containing comprehensive particulars including the trader's name, the name of the establishment, the shop number, and the exact extent (in feet) of the encroachment. The list systematically enumerated the status of encroachment for each individual shop.
Given the gravity of the situation, the then-SDO of Ranchi issued a letter to the Circle Officer of Hehal on July 25, 2025, directing that action be initiated under the Public Land Encroachment Act. A list of the encroachers was attached to this directive to ensure that appropriate action, in accordance with the rules, could be taken against the identified traders.
Subsequently, on November 11, 2025, the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board also issued a letter directing that the Pandra Agricultural Produce Market Committee be cleared of encroachments. Following this directive from the departmental level, it was widely anticipated that, very soon... A drive against encroachers was set to commence.
However, the sequence of events subsequently took a sudden and unexpected turn.
According to sources, the then-Secretary, Krishna Kumar Kanhaiya—who had submitted the list of encroachments—was removed from his post, and the charge of Secretary was handed over to the then-Market Supervisor, Sadhan Kumar. Discussions regarding this decision began immediately within departmental circles.
During the tenure of Sadhan Kumar—who served as Secretary from November 17, 2025, to December 9, 2025—no concrete action was taken against the encroachers. Neither was an anti-encroachment drive conducted, nor were notices issued; furthermore, the impact of administrative orders remained invisible on the ground. Gradually, the entire matter was put on the back burner.
Subsequently, on December 10, 2025, Krishna Kumar Kanhaiya suddenly returned to the post of Secretary. Upon his return, he once again demonstrated renewed vigor in addressing the encroachment issue. On December 27, 2025, he issued a letter to Sadhan Kumar, stating that the failure to take action against encroachers during his absence reflected a dereliction of duty and an act of arbitrariness.
It is alleged that no sooner had Krishna Kumar Kanhaiya attempted to accelerate the encroachment removal process and initiate action against the traders, than he was once again removed from the post of Secretary, and Sadhan Kumar was reinstated as Secretary.
Following this entire sequence of events, intense discussions have erupted within the Market Committee and departmental corridors. Questions are being raised as to why—despite the submission of a list identifying 167 encroaching traders, the issuance of directives by the then-Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranchi, and the orders received from the Managing Director of the Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board—concrete action failed to materialize on the ground.
There is also hushed speculation that certain influential traders are successfully stalling the proceedings by leveraging their influence and applying pressure. This is cited as the reason why, whenever an initiative to remove encroachments has been launched, a change in the office of the Secretary has invariably followed.
Currently, the situation remains such that the anti-encroachment drive at the Pandara Market Committee has come to a complete standstill. To date, no significant action has been taken against the 167 traders whose names were included in the submitted list. The matter has arisen, yet the entire issue remains buried within departmental files.
Now, the most pressing question being raised is this: if even the orders of the then-Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranchi—along with departmental directives—are failing to be implemented, then who, ultimately, fears the law? Furthermore, if no action is taken against those engaging in encroachment, how feasible will it be to prevent illegal occupations in government premises and market committees in the future?
