Dismissed¶22

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi Now General Manager v. Torish Yadav

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2026C.Rev./122/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition; condonation of delay; sufficient cause; 245 days delay in instituting appeal; appeal instituted 24.05.2024; judgment and order dated 28.06.2023 uploaded 21.08.2023; error apparent on the face of the record; antecedent delay unexplained; file movement table to table; Jharkhand State Electricity Board; Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited; order dated 28.10.2024; review dismissed without costs; pending I.A. disposed; neutral citation (2026:JHHC:3079-DB).

What did the court decide?

Sufficient cause was not shown for the 245 days' delay in instituting the appeal; the explanation provided was far from satisfactory, with no explanation why nothing was done up to 26.09.2023 and only cursory reasons of file movement pleaded thereafter. ¶17

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi Now General Manager Vs Torish Yadav — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:3079-DB )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 122 of 2025

¶3

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi now General Manager (Personnel & General Administration) Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Torish Yadav, Son of Sri Biru Gope, resident of Village Labga, P.O. Balkudra, P.S. Basal, District Ramgarh.

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

¶7

The Chairman cum Chief Managing Director, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director having its office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi

¶9

----Opp. Parties

¶10

--CORAM: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

02 / 05.02.2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

This review petition is nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter by simply pointing out that the judgment and order dated 28.06.2023 was in fact uploaded on 21.08.2023. Firstly, no such fact appears to have been pointed out when the order of which review is applied for, was made.

¶16

However, even if we consider that the order was uploaded on 21.08.2023, still, sufficient cause was required to be shown for 245 days delay in instituting this appeal. The Appeal was instituted only on 24.05.2024 i.e. 245 days beyond the date of uploading of the judgment and order dated 28.06.2023.

¶17

The explanation provided is far from satisfactory. Even after the order was uploaded, there is no explanation why nothing was done up to 26.09.2023. Even from 26.09.2023 to 07.03.2024, cursory reasons about

¶18

-2-

¶19

the file moving from table to table were pleaded. Precisely upon considering that such movement does not constitute sufficient cause, the order dated 28.10.2024 was made.

¶20

There is no error, much less, any error apparent on the face of record. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held that even antecedent delay is required to be explained. Here, there is no explanation whatsoever for the antecedent delay. The explanation for the post limitation period expiry delay is also far from sufficient.

¶21