Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11364 (JHR)

M/S. UMA CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY URMILA AGRAWAL v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/952/2025 · 2026-01-16

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC: 1136 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.952 of 2025 ----- M/s. Uma Construction, through its Proprietor, namely, Urmila Agrawal, wife of Manoj Kumar Agarwal, resident of Purana Bazar, Chakulia, P.S. Chakulia, District East Singhbhum. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Chandan Kumar, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chakulia, District East Singhbhum. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. D. C. Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha, Advocate ----- Order No.03 Date: 16.01.2026 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 8th April, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.763 of 2025. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 refers to the order as contained in memo no.811 dated 28th July, 2025 (Annexure-A to the show cause affidavit dated 8th September, 2025 filed on behalf of the said opposite party) and submits that the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied. 3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it has been admitted in the order dated 28th July, 2025 that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.34,53,304/-, however, the payment of the same has not been made to him, awaiting allotment of said amount from the Government. 4. Be that as it may. 2026:JHHC: 1136 2 5. Since in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Administrator, Chakulia Nagar Panchayat has already passed the reasoned order, there is no need to proceed further in the present matter. The contempt proceeding as against the opposite party no.2 is hereby dropped. 6. The present contempt case stands disposed of. 7. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of its subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 16th January, 2026 Sanjay/ Uploaded on 16.01.2026