2025:JHHC:25770-DB -1 of 2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 69 of 2023 Binod Ram Tirkey, aged about 46 years, Son of late Nagendra Tirkey, Resident of Village Nadiya, P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar Area, at P.O. & P.S. Piparwar, District Ranchi. 5. The Project Officer, Piparwar Project, Central Coalfields Limited, Piparwar Area, at P.O. & P.S.- Piparwar, District-Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate. --------- 05/Dated: 28.08.2025 I.A. No. 10751 of 2023 in/and Civil Review No. 69 of 2023 1. Heard the parties. 2. By this application, the petitioner-applicant has sought condonation of 1381 days’ delay in filing of the instant Civil Review petition. 3. The only ground urged in the Interlocutory Application is that the petitioner is a helpless poor fellow having no means to engage a lawyer to file the instant Review petition. However, not a single document has been annexed by the petitioner which may certify or prove his indigency. This presumes importance because the petitioner in earlier case, be it the writ petition or the L.P.A., had in fact appeared through counsel. That apart, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not 2025:JHHC:25770-DB -2 of 2- having sufficient means to pursue the litigation, he could have conveniently approached the Legal Services Authority, which has been created solely with the purpose of providing legal aid to the needy, more particularly, the indigents. 4. Having perused the application, we are clearly of the view that the petitioner has only set out lame excuses to try and show that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay whereas, it is not so. 5. The petitioner otherwise, has not given any details as to what he did. However, he tried to pursue the matter from the date of the judgment till the filing of the instant review petition. 6. Finally, for all the aforesaid reasons, we find no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner to condone the delay. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is dismissed. 7. Consequently, the Civil Review petition is also dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. APK/VK