( 2026:JHHC:19528 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4089 of 2026 Anupama Sinha, aged about 56 years, Wife of Nirbhay Prasad Sinha, Resident of Ved Enclave, Flat No. 3/C, Hazaribagh Road, Beside Kamal Pharma, P.O. and P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. President, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, JHRERA , Office at 7th Floor, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Office, Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O.,P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, JHRERA, through its Chairman, Office at 7th Floor, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Office, Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 4. Secretary, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, JHRERA, Office at 7th Floor, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Office, Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O.,P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 5. Narendra Butala, Son of Mani Lal Butala, Director of M/s Park Sarvmangula Projects Pvt. Ltd., Resident of 16 Bharatpuri, Purulia Road, P.O.-and P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bibhav Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar AC to SC-I, --- 06/03.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For issuance of an appropriate Writ/s, Order/s, Direction/s or a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to dispose of the Complaint Case No. 16 of 2025 filed by the petitioner on 24.04.2025 in which complaint has been made against Respondent No. 5 as parking space has been not allotted and the same has been used for commercial purpose.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed in view of the fact that the respondent Real Estate (Regulation and Development) JHRERA is not taking any step for ( 2026:JHHC:19528 ) 2 disposal of the complaint case no. 16 of 2025. During the course of hearing, entire order sheet annexed with the writ petition has been placed which reveals that the case was 1st taken up before the authority on 19.02.2025 and notice was issued and on subsequent dates i.e. 15.07.2025, 12.08.2025, 09.09.2025, 16.10.2025, 18.11.2025 the petitioner did not file the postal receipt along with tracking report. It appears that it was the petitioner who was not taking appropriate steps before the authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner upon a query of this court has submitted that he has filed the tracking report before the authority but the same has not been filed before this court nor any such statement has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. 5. This court is of the considered view that the records reveal that there was laches on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is seeking a mandamus directing the concerned authority to dispose of the complaint case. 6. This court finds no merit in this writ petition so as to issue any such direction as prayed for by the writ petitioner and accordingly the same is dismissed. 7. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner in any manner and the concerned authority is certainly duty bound to decide the complaint in accordance with law. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 03.07.2026 Uploaded on 04.07.2026 Binit/