2026:JHHC:16411-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 40 of 2026 Dilip Kumar Ravidas, S/o Sri Puran Ravidas, R/o Village-Lupung, P.O. Lupung, P.S. Katkamsandi & District-Hazaribagh ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi. 6. The Commissioner, North Chhota Nagpur Division, Hazaribagh 7. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Hazribagh 9. Marshal Prathmik Bunkar Sahyog Samiti, Kajri, PO & PS Charhi, District-Hazaribagh, through its President, Suresh Murmu. 10. Kajri Cotton Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Kajri, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District Hazaribagh, through its President, Suresh Murmu. 11. Saksham Mahila Utpadak Samuh, Kisko, P.O. & P.S. Kisko, District- Lohardaga, through its President, Jyoti Oraon. ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to A.A.G.-III For the JEPC: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ----- 04/09.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application seeks review of the order dated 12.11.2025 disposing of W.P.(PIL) No. 3524 of 2024. 3. In support of the review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the audit report dated 16.01.2025, which is now annexed with an interlocutory application filed along with this review petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the audit report, the NGOs had only purchased the uniforms from some 2026:JHHC:16411-DB 2 private suppliers. The audit report further records that an amount of Rs.52,12,280/- is recoverable from the suppliers and erring officials. Learned counsel submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in view of the findings in the audit report. He submits that the State Authorities filed a false affidavit, which was relied upon by this Court as would be evident from paragraph-4 of the order dated 12.11.2025 and therefore this order must be reviewed. 5. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III, points out that in paragraph-5 of the order dated 12.11.2025, this Court has clarified that in case, there is any audit objection regarding supply of the school uniforms then the concerned respondents shall take the same to its logical end. He submits that there is every intention to put the audit report to its logical end. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and we are satisfied that no case is made out for exercising our review jurisdiction. 7. The observations made in paragraph-4 of our order dated 12.11.2025 only refers to the statements made in the affidavit on behalf of the government. Despite such statements, this Court specifically clarifies that if there is any audit objections regarding supply of the school uniforms, the concerned respondent should take the same to its logical conclusion. 8. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner i.e. a public interest litigant has not even bothered to file any rejoinder and produce the audit report. The argument that the same was not available to the petitioner at that time, hardly inspires any confidence. Even a public interest litigant must make efforts and file a well-researched public interest litigation, if he is really interested in pursuing the cause. 2026:JHHC:16411-DB 3 9. In any event, even in the light of the clarification and observation made in paragraph-5 of our order dated 12.11.2025, no case is made out for review. We once again clarify that if there is any audit objection, the same must be taken to its logical conclusion without being influenced by any observations made by us in paragraph-4 of our order dated 12.11.2025. 10. The review petition is accordingly disposed of with the above clarification without any order for costs. 11. The pending interlocutory application will not survive and stands disposed of. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 09.06.2026 Satish/Pawan/