Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14565 (JHR)

RABINDRA PRASAD SINHA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/445/2024 · 2025-01-06

S N Pathak

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (C). No. 445 of 2024 ---------- Rabindra Prasad Sinha, son of late Umeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Unta Station Road, Opposite PWD Office, P.O. and P.S. Jahanabad, Dist. Jahanbad, Bihar. … … Petitioner - V E R S U S – 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Incharge Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. 4. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Chief Engineer, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Special Division, Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Palamu, Dist. Palamu. 5. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Incharge Superintending Engineer, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Special Division, Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Palamu, Dist. Palamu. 6. Mr. Ram Pukar Ram, Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Jharkhand Rural Development Department, Special Division, Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Palamu, Dist. Palamu. 7. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Accountant General, A.G. Office, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. …….. Opp. Parties. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC(M)-III Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate ---------- 05/ 06.01.2025 Heard the parties. It has been very fairly submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the order of this Court has already been complied with and in compliance thereof, the opposite parties have passed reasoned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not object to the same. In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the opposite parties, no contempt is made out against the opposite parties and hence, the same is dropped. 2 Resultantly, the instant contempt petition stands disposed of. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the reasoned order, if at all aggrieved by the same. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal