Disposed¶28

The State of Jharkhand v. Md.Sajid Ansari

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2026LPA/335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court division bench disposes of Letters Patent Appeal after condoning 55-day filing delay; compliance with prior direction to pass reasoned order noted (reasoned order dated 07.01.2026); respondents granted liberty to challenge that order before appropriate forum; no costs; stay application disposed. Keywords: condonation of delay, L.P.A., reasoned order, compliance, liberty to challenge, Rural Development Department Jharkhand, DRDA Jamtara.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 55 days condoned; appeal disposed of with liberty to the respondents to challenge the order dated 07.01.2026 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and on its own merits; no costs; I.A. No. 586 of 2025 (stay) disposed of as it does not survive. ¶28

The State of Jharkhand Vs Md.Sajid Ansari — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Sufficient cause was shown for the delay of 55 days and the delay was not inordinate; accordingly the delay was condoned and I.A. No. 3171 of 2025 was disposed of.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Once a reasoned order dated 07.01.2026 had been passed pursuant to the impugned order, there was no good ground to keep the appeal pending; the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to challenge the order dated 07.01.2026 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

L.P.A No. 335 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (decided 05.02.2026) - The State of Jharkhand and two Jamtara district officials (Appellants) v. Md. Sajid Ansari and the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondents); Coram: Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Deepak Roshan, J. I.A. No. 3171 of 2025: the appellants sought condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal; the Court found sufficient cause shown and the delay not inordinate, and condoned it. The appeal challenged an order directing the appellants to consider the respondents' case and pass a reasoned order. Counsel for the appellants stated that such a reasoned order was passed on 07.01.2026; counsel for the respondents contended there was no compliance and the order was illegal and vulnerable. Held: now that such an order has been made, there is no good ground to keep the appeal pending; the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to challenge the order dated 07.01.2026 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and on its own merits. No costs. I.A. No. 586 of 2025 (stay) does not survive and was disposed of.

¶1

2026:JHHC:3140-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

L.P.A No. 335 of 2025

¶4

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara-cum-District Programmer Coordinator (District Rural Development Agency), Jamtara, PO & PS-Jamtara, District Jamtara Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Additional District Program Coordinator (District Rural Development Agency), Jamtara, P.O & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand .... Appellant(s) Versus

¶8

Md. Sajid Ansari, aged about 32 years, son of Late Ramjan Ansari, Resident of: Gethibera, P.O Maharajaganj, P.S. Purbi Tundi, District Dhaband.

¶9

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O Dhurwa, P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶10

.... Respondent(s)

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

¶13

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate

¶14

¶15

3/05.02.2026 I.A. No. 3171 of 2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

In I.A No. 3171 of 2025, the appellants seek condonation of the delay of 55 days.

¶18

We have perused the I.A. and are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown to explain this delay. The delay is also not inordinate.

¶19

Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and I.A. No. 3171 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶20

L.P.A No. 335 of 2025

¶21

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, upon condonation of delay, the appeal is taken up for consideration.

¶22

By the impugned order the appellants were directed to consider the respondents’ case and pass a reasoned order.

¶23

¶24

2026:JHHC:3140-DB

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellants now states that such a reasoned order was passed on 07.01.2026. Thus, he submits that the impugned order has already complied with.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents argues that there is no compliance, and the so-called reasoned order is illegal and vulnerable.

¶27

If the respondents are of the opinion that there is no compliance or that the reasoned order is vulnerable for any reason, it is always open to the respondents to challenge the same in accordance with the law. However, now that an order has been made, there is no good ground to keep the appeal pending. The appeal is therefore disposed of with liberty to the respondents to take an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum to challenge the order dated 07.01.2026 in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶28