Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39700 (JHR)

HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/669/2018 · 2025-11-27

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:35508 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.669 of 2018 With I.A.15752 of 2025 ----- Harihar Prasad Singh, son of Late Jai Prakash Narayan Singh, resident of village Kitadih, Gadiwan Patti, near Model English High School, P.O. Kitadih, P.S. Parsudih, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Amit Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. N. Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I ----- Order No.10 Date: 27.11.2025 1. The present contempt case has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the opposite party no.2 for his wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 4th April, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5791 of 2016. 2. Earlier on 13th November, 2025 following order was passed, which reads as under:- “The present contempt application was earlier taken up on 09.10.2025 and on the said date, the following order was passed: “Reference may be made to order dated 11.07.2025, which reads as under: “1. On perusal of the show cause affidavit dated 08.01.2019, it appears that the order dated 03.10.2018 has been passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur, though vide order dated 04.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5791 of 2016, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur was directed to pass the order. 2. Hence, the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur cannot be treated to be in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court. 3. However, the opposite party no. 2 is granted four weeks’ more time by way of last indulgence to pass 2025:JHHC:35508 2 appropriate order in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court. 4. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission” after four weeks.” 2. It would be evident from the aforesaid order that the opposite party no. 2 was granted two weeks’ more time by way of last indulgence to pass appropriate order in compliance of the order dated 04.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5791 of 2016. 3. Neither any such order passed by the opposite party no. 2 has been placed on record nor any application seeking extension of time to comply the aforesaid order of this Court has been filed. 4. Under the said circumstance, the opposite party no. 2 is granted two weeks’ more time to duly comply the order dated 04.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5791 of 2016, as has been explained in the order dated 11.07.2025, failing which appropriate order against the said opposite party will be passed on the next date. 5. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission” after two weeks.” 2. No compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 3. Under the said circumstance, the O.P.No.2 is directed to remain physically present before this Court on the next date fixed. 4. Put up this case on 27.11.2025 under the same heading.” 3. I.A.15752 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, seeking exemption from his personal appearance and also annexing a copy of the order dated 17th October, 2025 passed by the said opposite party in Misc. Case No.68 of 2025-26, wherein it has been observed that there is a dispute with respect to possession over the land appertaining to Khata no.264, plot no.1353, measuring an area of 1.84 decimals. By observing so, the said miscellaneous case has been disposed of. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the contents of the I.A. No.15752 of 2025, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out against the opposite 2025:JHHC:35508 3 party no.2. The contempt proceeding as against the said opposite party is hereby dropped. 5. The personal appearance of opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. 6. The present contempt case as well as I.A. No.15752 of 2025 stand disposed of. 7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the order dated 17th October, 2025 passed in Misc. Case No.68 of 2025-26 as permissible under law. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 27th November, 2025 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 28.11.2025