Gopan Karmkar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:22544-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Civil Review No. 84 of 2025

Gopan Karmakar, S/o Late Jugal Karmakar, aged 53 years, resident of Kandra Basti, P.O and P.S-Mahuda (Baghmara), District-Dhanbad … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, P.O, P.S and District-Dhanbad

¶8

The Additional Collector, P.O, P.S and District-Dhanbad

¶9

Kashi Nath Saw, aged about 69 years, S/o Late Ahlad Mahato, resident of Village- Kandra, Ramnagar Garh, P.O and P.S- Mahuda, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶10

Krishna Prasad Mahato, aged about 51 years, S/o Late Ahlad Mahato, resident of Village- Kandra, Ramnagar Garh, P.O and P.SMahuda, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶11

Rasi Nath Saw, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ahlad Mahato, resident of Village- Kandra, Ramnagar Garh, P.O and P.S- Mahuda, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶12

Padma Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Late Kalipad Saw, resident of - Goswami Tola, P.O and P.S-Baldih, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand … Respondents

¶13

----------

¶14

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II

¶17

-----

¶18

Order No.05/Dated 08.08.2025

¶19

I.A. No. 8857 of 2025

¶20

The instant interlocutory application has been filed for

¶21

condoning the delay of 267 days, which has occurred in

¶22

preferring this Review Petition.

¶23

1

¶24

2025:JHHC:22544-DB

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by referring to the cause shown in the instant interlocutory application with prayer to consider the same to be sufficient cause to condone the delay of 267 days.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the State has made opposition in condoning the delay.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the instant interlocutory application which is evident from the Paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the delay condonation application.

¶28

This Court, after considering the statements made in the delay condonation application, is of the view that the petitioner is prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this review petition within time.

¶29

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 267 days in preferring this Civil Review, is hereby, condoned.

¶30

The instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 8857 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of.

¶31

Civil Review No. 84 of 2025

¶32

After some argument, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Review petition with liberty to avail the remedy available else.

¶33

There is no objection on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the State.

¶34

2

¶35

2025:JHHC:22544-DB

¶36

Upon aforesaid submission, the instant Review Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the review petitioner to search out remedy for redressal of the grievance in accordance with law.

¶37

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶38

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶39

Rajnish/R.K.

¶40

3

Gopan Karmkar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopan Karmkar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Kumar Modi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Ms Singh Stone Works through Its Proprietor Tapan Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation through Amit Chakravarty Vs Ministry of Coal

Prakash Tudu Vs Sabnam Sarita Tudu

Dineshwar Prasad Mahta Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rajender Prasad Mahta Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change