S N PRASAD ALIAS SACHCHIDANAND PRASAD v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED BOKARO STEEL PLANT THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
C.M.P./94/2024 · 2025-10-30
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32451 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32451 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:JHHC:32655 Page | 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.94 of 2024
S.N. Prasad @ Sachchidanand Prasad, Aged about-74 years, Son of Late Medhnath, Resident of Quarter No.4/D/C/1010, Sector-4, P.O.+P.S:- Sector-4, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand.
… Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, through Chief Executive officer having its office at:- Ispat Bhawan, Administrative Building, P.O+P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District.-Bokaro
2. Estate officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, having its office at:-Sector – 1, Opposite City Park, P.O+P.S:- Bokaro, Steel City, District.- Bokaro
… Opp. Parties
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Adv. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Adv.
Order No.04/Dated- 30.10.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed with a prayer for restoration of W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 to its original file which was stood dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was listed on 02.08.2023 before this Court and due to non- communication by conducting counsel who is now Public Prosecutor representing for State, petitioner's counsel did not mark the cause list at the stipulated time and he could not appear in the matter due to which the matter was unattended and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is further submitted that the laches on part of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. Petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 and unless W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 may be restored to its original file.
2025:JHHC:32655 Page | 2
4. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the ends of justice, W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 is restored to its original file.
5. Registry is directed to list W.P.(C) No.6638 of 2019 before the concerned Bench.
6. This civil miscellaneous petition is allowed accordingly.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin