[2025:JHHC:36648] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.587 of 2024 ------ Prasenjit Prasad Singh, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Uma Prasad Singh, R/o Rajagarh, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad; 3. The Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad; 4. The Circle Officer, Dhanbad Anchal, Dhanbad, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad; 5. Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad through the Commissioner, having office at Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad; 6. The Chief Executive Officer, Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad; 7. Santosh Kumar Singh, S/o Tej Pratap Singh, R/o Keshalpur Colliery, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA Ms. Ruhi Mukti, AC to AAG IA ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-05-12-2025 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.04.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.04.2024. It is next submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time and the prayer for time was allowed to the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks from the date of that order but the said deposit could not be made within the stipulated time as the petitioner was out of station and that order was not communicated to him; which resulted in dismissal of the said W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.04.2024. It is further submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.04.2024 of this Court was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 and submits that the opposite parties will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite parties be compensated adequately in terms of costs. Considering the facts of the case and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite parties through their learned counsel appearing in the record within one week from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 before the concerned Bench after one week only if the petitioner pays the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite parties through their learned counsel appearing in the record within one week from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and W.P.(C). No.2998 of 2017 shall remain dismissed. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 05.12.2025 Saroj/