2026:JHHC:20078 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 1035 of 2024 --------------- Gupteshwar Ram, aged about 57 years, Son of Dharichhan Ram, resident of Loyabad Cock Plant, P.O+P.S-Bansjore, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ........Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Miss Madhvi Mishra, fathers name not known to the petitioner, presently holding post of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, office at Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad. 3. Shri Sharad Anwar, fathers name not known to the petitioner, presently holding post of Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad, office at Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad. 4. Shri Niyaz Ahmad, fathers name not known to the petitioner, presently holding post of District Welfare Officer, Dhanbad, office at Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad. 5. Miss Nishu Kumari, fathers name not known to the petitioner, presently holding post of District Education Officer, Dhanbad, office at Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad. 6. Ayush Kumar, fathers name not known to the petitioner, presently holding post of District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, office at Dhanbad, PO+PS+District-Dhanbad. ...... Opposite Parties/Contemnors. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate For the OP-State : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC (L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III Order No.04/Dated: 8th July 2026 1. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, at the outset has submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2023 passed in W.P(S) No.1834 of 2013, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case, a reasoned order has been passed by the competent authority, i.e., OP No.5 vide Memo No.551 dated 22.02.2025 which is appended to the show cause dated 01.03.2025 as Annexure-A. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.02.2025 by preferring a 2026:JHHC:20078 2 writ petition and, as such, he does not want to press the present contempt petition with liberty to pursue the said writ petition. 3. Such submission has been made in presence of the learned counsel appearing for the concerned opposite parties. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Contempt Case is closed with the aforesaid liberty. 5. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Dated:08.07.2026 Sudhir