Allowed¶21

Chhoto Baskey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Feb 2026C.M.P./838/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; C.M.P. 838/2024; restoration application; appellant Chhoto Baskey (District-Pakur); petitioners' counsel Din Dayal Saha; respondents' counsel Indranil Bhaduri (AC to SC -IV); L.P.A. 467/2023 dismissed for default on 20.08.2024 for counsel's non-appearance; respondents (State of Jharkhand, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Establishment Committee Pakur, SP Pakur, SDO Pakur, CO Hiranpur, OIC Hiranpur PS) raised no objection; application allowed 3 February 2026 by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai; LPA restored to original file.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of L.P.A. No. 467 of 2023 to its original file ¶21

Chhoto Baskey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:2751-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P. No. 838 of 2024

¶4

Chhoto Baskey, aged about 27 years s/o-Late Bhairo Baskey, R/O Village-Pokharia, Post Daldali, P.S. –Hiranpur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand. … Appellant/Petitioner

¶5

… Appellant/Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶8

2.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Establishment Committee, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. and District-Pakur. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Pakur, P.O. + P.S. and DistrictPakur.

¶9

4.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, P.O. + P.S. and DistrictPakur.

¶10

5.The Circle Officer, Hiranpur, P.O. + P.S. –Hiranpur, DistrictPakur.

¶11

6.The Officer-in-charge, Hiranpur Police Station, P.O. + P.S.Hiranpur, District-Pakur. … … Respondents

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, AC to SC -IV

¶15

-------- Order No. 02 : Dated 3^rd February, 2026

¶16

1. The instant application has been filed for restoration of L.P.A. No. 467 of 2023, which stood dismissed for default on 20.08.2024 due to non-appearance of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner.

¶17

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 20.08.2028, the case could not be marked as such learned counsel for the appellant could not appear before the Court. Further submission has been made that non-appearance is not intentional and if the L.P.A. No. 467 of 2023 is not restored to its original file, the appellant-petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶19

2026:JHHC:2751-DB

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondents did not raise objection to the prayer made for restoration of the intra-court appeal i.e., LPA No. 467 of 2023.

¶21

5. Considering the reasons assigned in the restoration application, the instant application stands allowed and the L.P.A. No. 467 of 2023 is restored to its original file.

¶22

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶23

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶24

3^rd February, 2026

¶25

Alankar/-

Chhoto Baskey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhoto Baskey 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

Gautam Mishra Vs Preeti Mishra

Anand Dayal Vs Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises

Abhishek Ambastha Vs Kamaldeep Kour

Aman Singh Alias Aman Shekhar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs Sunita Devi

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur Vs Nitish Ranjan