Allowed¶33

Purnanand Jha v. State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC4 Feb 2025C.M.P./86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.M.P. No. 86 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, decided 04.02.2025 by Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; restoration application allowed; W.P.(C) No. 362 of 2023 restored to original file after dismissal for default on 22.08.2024 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 25.07.2024; sufficient cause found; certified copy not obtained within time; State counsel raised no serious objection; petitioners Purnanand Jha, Hari Prasad Jha and Ramji Jha of Deoghar; opposite parties include State of Jharkhand, Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division and Charge Officer, Attestation Camp Mohanpur.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of W.P.(C) No. 362 of 2023 to its original file; the C.M.P. allowed and disposed of accordingly. ¶33

Purnanand Jha Vs State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 86 of 2025

¶2

----

¶3

1. Purnanand Jha, aged about 74 years, S/o Dina Nath Jha, R/o Ward No.24, Near Matsya Vibhag Pandit B.N. Jha, Deoghar, PO and PS – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶4

2. Hari Prasad Jha, aged about 70 years, S/o Dina Nath Jha, R/o Ward No.24, Near Matsya Vibhag Pandit B.N. Jha, Deoghar, PO and PS – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand

¶5

3. Ramji Jha, aged about 69 years, S/o Dina Nath Jha, R/o Ward No.24, Near Matsya Vibhag Pandit B.N. Jha, Deoghar, PO and PS – Deoghar, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand .... Petitioners

¶6

-- Versus --

¶7

1. State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building, Ranchi, PO – Dhurwa, PS – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi

¶8

2. Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Dumka Division, Dumka, PO and PS – Dumka, District – Dumka

¶9

3. Charge Officer, Attestation Camp Mohanpur “A” PO and PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar

¶10

4. Baldev Mahto, S/o Late Avinash Mahto, R/o village – Bara, Panchayat Bara, PO – Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶11

5. Masudi Mahto, S/o Late Avinash Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶12

6. Ayodhya Mahto, S/o Late Avinash Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶13

7. Hukum Mahto, S/o Late Avinash Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶14

8. Nunu Mahto, S/o Late Avinash Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶15

9. Jalo Mahto, S/o Late Thakur Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶16

10. Karu Mahto, S/o Late Thakur Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶17

11. Bhuvan Mahto, S/o Late Janki Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶18

--1--

¶19

C.M.P. No. 86 of 2025

¶20

12. Huran Mahto, S/o Late Janki Mahto, R/o Village – Bara, Pachayat – Bara, PO– Rikhiya, PS – Rikhiya, District – Deoghar, 814113.

¶21

.... Opposite Parties

¶22

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶24

¶25

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ankur Anand, Advocate :- Mr. Atma Ram Choudhary, Advocate

¶26

For the State :- Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, Advocate

¶27

¶28

02 /04.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

¶29

2. This petition has been filed for restoration of W.P.(C) No.362 of 2023 to its original file which has been dismissed for default on 22.08.2024 for non-compliance of the order dated 25.07.2024.

¶30

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the certified copy could not be obtained within time and in view of that the certified copy has not been filed and since the order is peremptory one the W.P.(C) was dismissed.

¶31

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has got no serious objection if the said W.P.(C) is restored to its original file.

¶32

5. This Court finds that sufficient cause has been made out for the restoration of W.P.(C) No.362 of 2023. As such W.P.(C) No.362 of 2023 is hereby restored to its original file.

¶33

6. This petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶35

Sangam/

¶36

--2--

¶37

C.M.P. No. 86 of 2025

Purnanand Jha v. State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnanand Jha v. State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilima Tirkey Vs Police

Ganesh Yadav Alias Birendra Yadav Vs Birma Devi

Suleman Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Balkrishna Prasad Mehta Vs Babita Pandit

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Prof Vijay Singh

Musheer Alam Jahangir Vs Gopal Prasad Mali