Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11082 (JHR)

BIHAR STATE INDUSTRIAL CORPORA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND And ORS

WPC/2597/2012 · 2026-01-13

Rajesh Shankar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:797 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2619 of 2012 ----- Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Patna (Bihar), through Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri R.S. Singh, General Manager, High Tension Insulator Factory a wholly owned unit of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited R/o Qr. No. E/8 H.T.I.F. Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, Town & District-Ranchi .......... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Ranchi 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and Revenue) Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi .......... Respondents With W.P. (C) No. 2597 of 2012 ----- Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Patna (Bihar), through Sri Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri R.S. Singh, General Manager, Electric Equipment Factory a wholly owned unit of the Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Limited R/o Qr. No. E/8 H.T.I.F. Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, Town & District-Ranchi .......... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 3. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Ranchi 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Commercial and Revenue) Electric Supply Circle, Doranda, Ranchi .......... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners : None For the Respondents: Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, AC to GP-VI Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate ----- Order No.54 Date: 13.01.2026 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 22.07.2025, which reads as under: 2026:JHHC:797 2 “Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for time. Prayer for time is allowed as the last chance. List this case after four week.” 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Under the said circumstance, there is no need to keep the present writ petitions pending. 4. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 13.01.2026 Vikas/ Uploaded on 13.01.2026