2026:JHHC:13953 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1198 of 2025 Ramesh Bhagat, aged about 49 years, son of Shri Deocharan Bhagat, resident of Village Tegra, P.O. Kamalpur, P.S. Jari, District Gumla, Jharkhand … … Petitioner/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla 4. The Superintendent of Police, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla 5. The Circle Officer, Dumri, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, District Gumla 6. The Officer in-charge, Jari Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Jari, District Gumla… … Respondents/Opposite Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Harsh Chandra, AC to GP IV --- 14/08.05.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This civil miscellaneous petition is being filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of W.P.(S) No.5480 of 2018, to its original file, which was dismissed for default for non-prosecution vide order dated 21.06.2022 passed by this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of the case much later, and therefore, the petition for restoration has been filed. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the so-called heredity right of chowkidar does not survive anymore and the writ petition was filed seeking heredity right for appointment of chowkidar. 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the writ petition is restored, the case be decided on merit. 6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for restoration and submits that there is no sufficient explanation for non- appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition for restoration has been filed by another counsel. 2026:JHHC:13953 2 7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is not at all satisfied with the cause shown by the petitioner seeking restoration of the writ petition. Otherwise also, no useful purpose will be served by restoring the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/-