Raju Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2025:JHHC:23651

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.395 of 2024

¶3

-----

¶4

Raju Saw, aged about 33 years, son of Suklal Saw, Resident of Village-Brinda, P.O. Rupaydih, P.S. Birni, District-Giridih.

¶5

Niraj Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Anirudh Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Giribarwadih, P.O. and P.S. Simaria, District-Giridih.

¶6

Bhola Prasad Mahto, aged about 38 years, son of Tokan Prasad Mahto, Resident of Mohalla-Krishna Nagar behind Bus Stand, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, DistrictGiridih.

¶7

Subodh Kumar Verma, aged about 36 years, son of Rameshwar Prasad Verma, Resident of Village-Sirsa, P.o. Kurhobind, P.S. Jamua, District-Giridih.

¶8

Md. Tabrej Alam, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Yunush Ansari, Resident of Village-Mokamo, P.O.Koridih, P.S.-Saria, District-Giridih.

¶9

Ravindra Kr. Barnwal, aged about 31 years, son of Saryu Lal Barnwal, Resident of Village-Kakni, P.O.-Gungi, P.S.Tisri, District-Giridih.

¶10

… … Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand.

¶13

The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶14

The Secretary, Department of Information Technology and E-Governance at Government of Jharkhand at Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶15

The Secretary, Department of Planning and Finance, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶16

The Director, Department of Information Technology and E-Governance at Government of Jharkhand at Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chakradharpur, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, DistrictWest Singhbhum.

¶18

… … Opp. Parties

¶19

------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶20

------For the Petitioners : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate

¶21

1

¶22

2025:JHHC:23651

¶23

For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to GP-III ------

¶24

Order No. 05 / Dated 13^th August, 2025

¶25

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for restoration of writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1423 of 2022 which stood dismissed for default due to noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 13.12.2023.

¶26

2. The reason assigned in the instant petition is that the copy of Annexure-5 was not available with the petitioners due to which the same was not filed, hence, defect was pointed out and when the writ petition was listed before the Bench, peremptory order was passed to file the copy of Annexure-5. Thereafter, petitioners took steps for procuring the copy of the same under the Right to Information Act and in response thereto, the copy of Annexure-5 including all the documents was supplied to the petitioners after 08.02.2024 but in the meantime, the peremptory time was expired, which resulted into dismissal of the writ petition for default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.12.2023.

¶27

3. It has further been stated that there was no deliberate fault or laches on the part of the counsel or on the part of the petitioners and it was due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond their control.

¶28

4. It has been submitted that the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for restoration of writ

¶29

2

¶30

2025:JHHC:23651

¶31

petition being W.P.(S) No.1423 of 2022 which stood dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 13.12.2023 and if the same will not be restored, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶32

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has not opposed to such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶33

6. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions advanced by him and the reason assigned in the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition, deems it fit and proper to restore the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1423 of 2022 which stood dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order, to its original file.

¶34

7. In view thereof, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1423 of 2022 is restored to its original file.

¶35

8. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶36

9. List before appropriate Bench.

¶37

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶38

Saurabh/

¶39

3

Raju Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Saw v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Keshri Industries through Its Partner Satya Prakash, Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt.Ltd.,through Its Director Sri Sanjay Kumar Khemka Vs I.S.D.S Private Limited, Respresented through Its Director Birendra Kumar Singh Yadav

Deo Narayan Mehta Alias Chhotan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through the Commissioner

Imtiaz Ahmad Vs Directorate of Enforcement , Govt of India Represented Thro Its Assistant Director

Sheikh Maneer Alias S K Maneer Vs the State of Jharkhand