Dismissed¶31

The D. C, Jamtara-Cum-Dist. Programmer Coordinator, Jamtara v. Poonam Kumari

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2025LPA/293/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of appeal against consented order; L.P.A. No. 293 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.; decided 02.09.2025; appellants: Deputy Commissioner Jamtara, Deputy Development Commissioner Jamtara, District Rural Development Agency; respondent no. 1: Poonam Kumari; parity with Rahul Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(S) No. 2052 of 2024, Neutral Citation 2024:JHHC:36308; condonation of 82 days' delay; I.A. No. 3710 of 2025; result: appeal dismissed as not maintainable, delay condoned.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 82 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No. 3710 of 2025 disposed of); no substantive relief to appellants as the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. ¶31

The D. C, Jamtara-Cum-Dist. Programmer Coordinator, Jamtara Vs Poonam Kumari — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:26664-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A. No. 293 of 2025

¶4

The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara-cum-District Programme Coordinator (District Rural Development Agency), Jamtara

¶5

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamtara

¶6

The District Rural Development Agency, through the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator, Jamtara

¶7

….. Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Poonam Kumari, wife of Sri Krishan Kumar, R/o Baheri, P.O.-Oraiya, P.S.Mufassil, District-Hazaribagh

¶10

The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶11

….. Respondents -----

¶12

CORAM

¶13

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

For the Appellants:	----- Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
For the Res. No.1:	Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate -----

¶15

03/02.09.2025

¶16

I.A. No. 3710 of 2025:

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, we find sufficient cause having been carved out which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 82 days crept up in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶18

The present interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

L.P.A. No. 293 of 2025:

¶20

With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is heard finally.

¶21

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court would indicate that the same has been passed with the consent of the appellant. Paragraph nos. 3 & 4 of the said order read as under:

¶22

“3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing

¶23

for the petitioner submits that similar matter fell for

¶24

consideration before this Court in the case of Rahul

¶25

¶26

2025:JHHC:26664-DB

¶27

Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. , decided in W.P.(S) No. 2052 of 2024 whereby direction was Neutral Citation 2024:JHHC:36308 2 issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara to issue necessary order for joining of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is same and similar to the aforesaid case and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents to treat the present petitioner in similar fashion, as that of the aforesaid case.

¶28

Learned counsel representing the respondents very fairly submits that the issue involved in this case has already been decided by this Court and as such, the present petitioner may also be extended the same benefit,

¶29

as has been given to the petitioner of the aforesaid case.”

¶30