Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3957 (JHR)

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND v. JONATHAN MARANDI

C.Rev./13/2020 · 2025-01-31

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.13 of 2020 ------ 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Director General of Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Commandant Headquarters, Jharkhand Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 6. Commandant, District Home Guard, Dumka. … … Petitioners Versus 1. Jonathan Marandi 2. Juwel Tudu 3. Rajdev Marandi 4. Budhinath Murmu 5. Maheswer Baski 6. Saleem Miyan @ Saleem Ansari 7. Harilal Murmu 8. Subhatan Hembram 9. Budi Soren 10. Sonatan Hembrom 11. Uday Tudu 12. Mahadeo Soren … … Respondents ------ For the Petitioners : None present For the Respondents : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Nischay, Advocate ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ 05 /31.01.2025 I.A. No.9345 of 2022 The respondents appeared by filing the Vakalatnama, which is accepted. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is disposed of. Civil Review No.13 of 2020 This review application was filed in the year 2020 and we are in the year 2025. 2. This review application is still defective. 2 3. The matter was placed before the Lawazima Bench on 06.03.2020 when time was granted to remove the defects but the petitioners did not chose to remove the same. This application was thereafter listed before this Court on 09.04.2021 when on the prayer of counsel representing the petitioners, four weeks’ time was granted to remove the defects but still the defects were not removed. 4. Today after three years, this case has again been listed with a note that the defects have not been removed. There are eight defects. 5. Today also, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners. 6. This gives an impression that the petitioners have lost their interest in this case. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Review stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2