2026:JHHC:19934-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3702 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Late Madho Lal Mandal, resident of Jamgaon, P.O. Baluachak, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, having its office at Deoghar Collectorate, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. 2. District Mining Officer, Deoghar, having its office at Deoghar Collectorate, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. 3. Assistant Mining Officer, Deoghar, having its office at Deoghar Collectorate, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate. Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate. Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate. Ms. Anish Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms Neeharika Mazumdar A.C. to A.G. --------- 02/Dated: 07.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Sumeet Gadodia who appears with Mr Anish Lal for the petitioner and Ms Neeharika Mazumdar, learned A.C. to A.G. for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondents to dispose of his representation of January, 2019 (Annexure-7) pages 38 to 41 of the paper book in a time bound manner. 3. The above representation was made by the petitioner pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in its order dated 12.09.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 224 of 2018. It is asserted in the petition that till date, the representation has not been disposed of. 4. The petitioner has sought to explain the delay in filing the present petition by pointing out that the petitioner was stabbed and this resulted in prosecution of the accused persons. 5. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Bhagalpur dated 29.04.2024 has also been annexed to this petition. 6. Since the representation was made by the petitioner in January, 2019 pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court on 12.09.2018, at least the 2026:JHHC:19934-DB -2- representation cannot be said to have been delayed. Such representation should have been disposed of by now. 7. Ms. Mazumdar states that if the representation is not already disposed of, then, the first respondent will dispose of such representation in accordance with law and on its own merits within three months from today. 8. By accepting the above statement, we dispose of this petition. Consistent with the statement now made, the first respondent must dispose of the petitioner’s representation at Annexure-7 within three months in accordance with law and on its own merits. We clarify that all contentions of all parties on merits are left specifically open because we have not had an occasion to examine the same. Whole direction is only to dispose of the representation in accordance with law and this direction should not be construed as one directing that such representation should be allowed or rejected. All these are matters that will have to be decided by the first respondent in accordance with law and on their own merits. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 10. Ms Mazumdar must communicate this order to the first respondent at the earliest. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 07.07.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 10.07.2026