Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3488 (JHR)

RAMA KANT OJHA And ORS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS

WPC/4363/2011 · 2025-07-22

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:JHHC:20072] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.4363 of 2011 ------ 1. Rama Kant Ojha son of Sri Shyam Chandra Ojha, resident of LIG Flat No.1/6, LIG Colony, Adityapur-2, P.O. Adityapur P.S. (RIT) Adityapur, Dist- Seraikella Kharsawan. 2. Ramawati Sinha wife of Sri Ramesh Chandra Sinha, resident of LIG Flat No.5/11, LIG Colony, Adityapur-2, P.O. Adityapur P.S. (RIT) Adityapur, Dist- Seraikella Kharasawan 3. Nirmal Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh, resident of LIG Flat No.1/7, LIG Colony, Adityapur-2, P.O. Adityapur P.S. (RIT) Adityapur, Dist- Seraikella Kharsawan .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand State Housing Board through its Managing Director having its Office at Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora Dist- Ranchi 4. The Managing Director State Housing Board having its office at Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Harmu P.S. Argora Dist- Ranchi 5. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 6. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board having its office at Adityapur-1, P.O. Adityapur P.S. (RIT) Adityapur, Dist.- Seraikella Kharsawan .... .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : None For the Resp. Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II ------ Order No:-06 Dated:-22-07-2025 Heard the learned AAG II appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6. No one turns up on behalf of the petitioners in spite of repeated calls. Learned AAG II appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 submits that since there is no merit in this Writ Petition, hence, the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/