( 2025:JHHC:29356 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 818 of 2025 ------ 1. Shaukat Ali Ansari, aged about 62 years, son of Late Kabiruddin Ansari 2. Md. Ali Ansari, aged about 72 years, son of Late Kabiruddin Ansari 3. Md. Shamim Ansari, aged about 35 years, son of Shaukat Ali Ansari Petitioner no. 1 & 3 resident of village Belal Nagar Chitarpur, P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa, District –Ramgarh and petitioner no.2 at Akhra Mohalla, near Ansar Masjid, Chitarpur, P.O. Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa, District –Ramgarh. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District – Ramgarh. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District – Ramgarh. 4. Circle Officer, Chitrapur, P.O., P.S. Chitarpur, District – Ramgarh. 5. Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District – Ramgarh. 6. Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Engineer Hostel, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. –Dhurwa, District –Ranchi. 7. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, at Ghutuwa, P.O., P.S. & District –Ramgarh. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC-I ------ Order No.02 Dated- 19.09.2025 Heard the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 was dismissed for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not mark the case in the cause list, hence he could not appear before the Court, resulting in dismissal of the said W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 and unless W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 be restored to its original file. Considering the facts of the case and the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List W.P.(C) No. 6326 of 2017 under the appropriate heading, before the appropriate Bench, after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 19.09.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-