Dismissed

Rajendra Pandey and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation through Its Director New Delhi and Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Nov 2017Cr.M.P./2307/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition seeking restoration of a writ petition that was previously dismissed for default due to non-appearance on the relevant date. The court found the petitioner's explanation did not justify restoration.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the petition for restoration is dismissed.

What the court decided

Rajendra Pandey and Anr. Vs the Central Bureau of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 2307 of 2017

¶3

1.Rajendra Pandey

¶4

2.Benignus Kujur

¶5

….........Petitioners

¶6

Vrs.

¶7

1.The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, New Delhi

¶8

2.The Superintendent of Police, CBI, AHD, Ranchi

¶9

3.The Union of India through its Home Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi

¶10

…....... Opposite Parties

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Parties : Mr. K.P.Deo ( for CBI)

¶12

04/10.11.2017 Petitioner has sought restoration of W.P.(Cr.) No. 84 of 2014, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 21.7.2017. As per the averments made in the instant petition, the cause list of 21.7.2017 was served by the hawker in late hours and it escaped the eye sight of the counsel. Therefore, the case could not be attended. Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the writ petition is not restored.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party, CBI opposed the prayer

¶14

for restoration.

¶15

It appears from the order sheets of the connected case that on 28.1.2016 when the matter was taken up, on the prayer made, it was adjourned with a clear observation that no adjournment would be granted on the next date. When the matter was taken up thereafter on 30.6.2017, learned counsel on record was not present. The prayer for adjournment was being made on his behalf on the ground that he was out of station. Taking note of the previous order the case was however adjourned by way of last indulgence. Finally when the case was taken up on 21.7.2017, again there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the CBI was present. In the background circumstances noted above, since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the said date also, the writ petition was dismissed for

¶16

default.

¶17

The sequence of facts noted above does not justify the cause shown on the part of the petitioner for restoration. In this circumstance, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to show satisfactory ground for restoration of the writ petition.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶19

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶20

A.Mohanty

Rajendra Pandey and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation through Its Director New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rajendra Pandey and Anr. v. the Central Bureau of Investigation through Its Director New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Prasad Mahto and Ors. Vs Baleshwar Mistry

Indu Bhushan Singh Vs Mr Amrit Lal Meena Principal Secretary Road Construction Deptt

Mahesh Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Ms Hans Regency Through Its Managing Director S P Gupta Vs Ms Steel Authority Of India Limited

Ms Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited Reprr Thr Its Authorised Signatory Vs Earth Mover Consultancy Private Limited Through Its Managing Director Mr Aziz Hussain

Biren Chandra Das Alias Virendra Chandra Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.