CHUNU KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND
C.M.P./201/2025 · 2025-03-28
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6110 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6110 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 201 of 2025
1. Chunu Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Dinesh Prasad, resident of: Garam Nala, PO & P.S: Bistupur, Dist: East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur), Jharkhand;
2. Rahul Prakash, aged about 34 years, son of Late Gupteshwar Rai, resident of: Bhola Bagan Road, PO & P.S: Chotta Govindpur, Dist: East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur), Jharkhand;
3. Lav Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Awadhesh Rai, resident of: Garam Nala, PO & P.S: Bistupur, Dist: East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur), Jharkhand … … Petitioners/Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi;
2. Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, having office at Project Bhawan, PO & PS- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi;
3. Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reform and Rajyabhasa Department, having office at Nepal House, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi;
4. Director General of Police-cum- Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Police Headquarter, PO & PS- Hatia, District- Ranchi
5. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, PO & PS- Namkum, District-Ranchi
6. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, PO & PS- Namkum, District-Ranchi… … Respondents/Opp. Parties ---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate
--- 03/28.03.2025
The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This petition has been filed for restoration of W.P.(S) No. 1308 of 2018, which has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of
order dated 06.04.2024 as the defects could not be removed within the stipulated time.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of inadvertence, the defects could not be removed. He accordingly prays that the writ petition be restored.
2
4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has no objection to the prayer for restoration.
5. Considering the submission and being satisfied with the cause shown, the order for removal of defects passed in W.P.(S) No. 1308 of 2018 is extended till 17.04.2025.
6. If the defect(s) in the writ petition is removed within the extended time, office is directed to place the writ petition before appropriate Bench as per roster.
7. This CMP is accordingly disposed of.
8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/-