2026:JHHC:19575 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil). No. 467 of 2025 ---------- 1. Bikram Mandal, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Kuber Mandal, resident of Vilalge Kisan Prasad, P.O.-Rampur, P.S.-Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj; 2. Anil Kumar Soren, aged about 41 years, son of Late Sonaram Soren, resident of Village-Narayanpur, P.O.-Kusumghati, P.S.-Rajamati, District- Godda; 3. Kishore Kumar Murmu, aged about 39 years, son of Late Mahendra Murmu, resident of Village Belatikar, P.O.-Baghamari, P.S.-Devipur, District-Deoghar; 4. Binkos Khess, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Ilyajar Khess, resident of Village Samsera, P.O.-Samsera, P.S.-Bolba, District-Simdega; 5. Sushil Kumar Minz, aged about 45 years, son of Late Peka Minz, resident of Village-Jhinjhri, Korambe, P.O.-Korambe, P.S.-Mandar, District- Ranchi; 6. Dhanay Jetha Kumar Horro, aged about 40 years, son of Late Subodh Kumar Horo, resident of Mohalla-Lapa, P.O.-Lapa, P.S.-Karra, District- Khunti; ………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Sunil Kumar, S/O not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 3. Sunit Kumar, Son of not known to the petitioner, Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 4. Sanjay Kujur, Son of not known to the petitioner, Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 5. L Khiangte, Son of not known to the petitioner, Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, Circular Road, P.O.-GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi; ………. Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Jay Prakash, Advocates ---------- 12/ 03.07.2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission for withdrawal of the instant application since the grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed. 2. Learned respondents do not object to the same. 3. In view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the instant application stands dismissed as withdrawn. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 3rd July, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded 06.07.2026