IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 15 of 2025 1. Ambika Ray, son of Tirnanath Ray, Resident of H. No. 79, Thari, P.O.- and P.S.-Thari, District-Deoghar. 2. Sawan Kumar Rai, son of Deonarayan Ray, Resident of Village-Thari, P.O.- and P.S.-Baramsoli, District-Deoghar. 3. Devnarayan Ray, Son of Tirath Ray, Resident of Village-Pipra, P.O.- and P.S.-Sirsa, District-Deoghar …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.- and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O.-and P.S.- Dumka, District-Dumka. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O.- and P.S.-Deoghar, District Deoghar. 4. The Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Division, P.O and P.S.-Dumka, District-Dumka. 5. The Assistant Settlement, Officer Santhal Pargana, Dumka, P.O. And P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka 6. Sub Divisional officer, Deoghar, P.O- and P.S-Deoghar, District Deoghar. 7. Sub Divisional Officer, Sarath, P.O and P.S.-Sarath, District-Deoghar. 8. Circle officer, Sarath, P.O. And P.S., Sarath, District Deoghar. 9. Superintendent of Police, Deoghar, P.O- and P.S -Deoghar, District, Deoghar. 10.Officer In-Charge, Sarath (Chitra), P.O and P.S.-Sarath, District Deoghar. 11.Kaushalya Manjhian. 12.Bali Manjhi, son of Ranenu Manjhi. 13.Shankar Manjhi, son of Ranenu Manjhi 14.Diwakar Manjhi, son of Late Guna Rajwar 15.Bisan Manjhi, son of Late Girja Manjhi 16.Sital Manjhi, son of Late Mathu Manjhi 17.Bhola Manjhi, son of Late Jaya Manjhi 18.Dhodho Manjhi, son of Late Janki Manjhi 19.Ando Manjhi, son of Late Janki Manjhi 20.Preman Manjhi, son of Late Janki Manjhi 21.Subti Manjhi, son of Late Girja Manjhi 22.Jiya Ram Rajwar, son of Late Begaru Rajwar From 11 to 22 all are resident of village-Tharhi, P.O and P.S-Sarath, District-Deoghar. ….Opposite Party(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Party(s): Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ------ 4/17.01.2025: Heard the counsel for the parties. This restoration petition has been filed for restoration of WP(C) No. 208 of 2022, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 26.2.2024 as the defects were not removed within peremptory time. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no sooner the writ petition is restored, they will take necessary steps to remove the defects within a period of two weeks. Considering the aforesaid submission, I am inclined to allow this restoration petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, WP(C) No. 208 of 2022 is restored to its original file. It is expected that the petitioners will remove the defects as pointed out by the office in writ petition within two weeks. Anu/Rashmi-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )