Partly allowed

Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Nov 2022C.M.P./167/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an interlocutory application filed toimplead an intervener-applicant. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017, dismissed earlier for non-compliance, was allowed. The writ petition was restored to its original file subject to removal of defects within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application No. 6494 of 2020 dismissed; W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017 restored to original file subject to removal of defects within four weeks.

Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P. No. 167 of 2020 With

¶4

I.A. No. 6494 of 2020

¶5

------

¶6

Lal Praveer Nath Shahdeo, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Kamleshwar Nath Shahdeo, R/o Village-Jagarnathpur, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶9

2.The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶10

3.The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi.

¶11

4.The Jharkhand State Religious Board of Trust Having its Office at Birsa Jail Compound, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. .... Opposite Parties/Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A. IV Mr. Vishal Kr Rai, AC to G.A. IV For the Intervener : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Adv ------ Order No. 4 / Dated: 14^th November, 2022

¶16

I.A. No. 6494 of 2020

¶17

The instant application has been filed for

¶18

impleading the intervener-applicant as party respondent in the present case.

¶19

¶20

Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant-intervener, on instruction, does not want to press the instant Interlocutory Application.

¶21

In view thereof, the instant Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 6494 of 2020) stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶22

C.M.P. No. 167 of 2020

¶23

The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for restoration of W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 05.02.2019.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 05.02.2019, may be restored to its original file otherwise the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶25

Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned AC to learned G.A. IV, appearing for the Opp. Parties, does not raise objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions advanced on their behalf as also the reason assigned in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition, deems it fit and proper to restore the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 05.02.2019, to its original file.

¶27

¶28

In view thereof, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 638 of 2017 is restored to its original file, subject to removal of defect(s) within a period of four weeks, if any.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

Alankar/-

Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Pravir Nath Shahdeo v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Smt Sakiran Nisha And Ors. Vs Budhnath Mishra And Anr.

Sandeep Munda Alias Lilu Munda Vs the Manager Legal Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Branch Manager Ms Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashera Khatoon And Ors.

Aeros Sales Throguh Its Proprietor Kusum Kumari Vs Management of Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Ms Techno Weld Services through Its Authorized Signatory Tapati Mukherjee Vs Ms Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors.

Aero Sales through Its Proprietor Kusum Kumari Vs the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Chief Executive Officer and Anr.