1 ( 2026:JHHC:2649-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 146 of 2025 Har Narayan Lakhotia, aged about 85 years, son of Late Shiv Narayan Lakhotia, resident of Flat No. 3B, Third Floor, Chandralok Apartment, Court Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001. …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Urban Development and Housing Department, through its Secretary, having its office at Urban Development and Housing Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 3. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, 834001, Jharkhand. 4. The Regional Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman, having its office at Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Kutchery Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. 5. M/s. Aroma Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Aroma Palace, Albert Ekka Chowk, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand, through its Director(s). (i) Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Mr. Ram Pravesh Singh, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. (ii) Bibhuti Bhushan Prasad Amar, son of Late Bishwanath Prasad Amar, resident of Ratu Road, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi- 834001, Jharkhand. 6. Sanjay Vidrohi @ Sanjay Kumar Vidrohi, owner of Godown/Shop in the parking area of ground floor of Chandralok Apartment, Court Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 834001, Jharkhand. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Advocate Mr. Chatur Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shabana Perween, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Ms. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate 2 ----- 02/ Dated 02.02.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.12.2024, disposing of W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022. 3. In fact, two separate L.P.As should have been filed. However, in this particular case, instead of declining any relief based upon this technical default, we proceed to dispose of this L.P.A. with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties finally. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both these petitions were taken up for hearing on 28th of November, 2024, on which date, he reached late on account of some medical emergency. At his request, the matter was again posted on 29th November, 2024. The matter, however, could not be taken up on the said date. 5. The appellant has placed on record the case details, as reflected on the website of this Court, which show that the next date post 29.11.2024 was 31.01.2025. This document is on page 47 of the paper book. In addition, the appellant has pleaded, and the document at pages 53 to 55 supports, that he received an SMS message on 29.11.2024 at 05.44 pm stating that the next date was 31.01.2025. 6. The records, however, reflect that the case was mentioned on 29.11.20024 and taken up for hearing on 03.12.2024. There is no record that this mention of 29.11.2024 was in the presence of the appellant. There is also no record that any notice was served upon the appellant either about the mention on 29.11.2024 or the fact that the matter was 3 posted on 03.12.2024. Even the impugned order reflects that the same was heard on 03.12.2024 in the absence of the appellant and thereafter reserved for Orders. On 16.12.2024, both the petitions were disposed of. 7. The appellant has also placed on record the SMS message received by him on 16.12.2024 at 5.55 pm informing him that W.P.(C) No. 2830 of 2022 has been disposed of on 16.12.2024. On the same day, at about 5.26 pm, the appellant also received an SMS message stating that W.P.(C) No. 2671 of 2022 is listed on 16.12.2024 in Court No. 14. 8. Considering the above materials, we are satisfied that the matter was disposed of on 16.12.2024 based upon the hearing of 03.12.2024 in the absence of the appellant. This Court’s website had clearly indicated that the next date in the matter was 31.01.2025. Even the SMS message sent to the appellant on 29.11.2024 confirmed that the next date was 31.01.2025. As noted above, there is no record of any notice of postponement of the date to the appellant. There is also no record of the appellant being informed of the date being advanced. 9. Mr. Gadodia did submit that the appellant was aware of the preponed date of 03.12.2024. He also refers to the impugned judgment and order, in which there is a reference to listing the matter on 03.12.2024 and learned counsel for the appellant not appearing on the said date. Mr Gadodia submitted that a full opportunity was granted to the appellant and his counsel, and there was no failure of natural justice as such. 10. Having considered Mr. Gadodia’a submissions, we are unable to accept the same, given the above materials placed on record by the appellant in the form of the extracts from the Court’s website and the transcripts of the 4 SMS messages. Even assuming that there was some confusion or inadvertent clerical errors as were sought to be suggested on behalf of the Respondents, still, the impact of these on the appellant or his counsel on account of these unintentional errors cannot be ruled out. And in fact, impact is quite evident, inasmuch as neither the appellant nor his Advocate appeared on 03.12.2024. 11. Normally, when the matter is mentioned for preponement, the same should be done with specific notice to the opposite parties. In any event, notice should be served on the opposite parties or their counsel informing them about the preponed date. There is no such record in the present case. 12. Though learned counsel for the appellant tried to make submissions on the merits of the matter, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to go into the merits of the matter when the primary complaint was about the impugned order being made without granting the appellant or his Advocate an effective opportunity of being heard. Mr Gadodia also sought to make submissions on the merits and submitted that the appellant was only interested in reopening the settled issues, without any merit in his cause. 13. However, we have declined the invitation extended by the rival parties to review the merits of the matter. Ultimately, in such matters, the decision- making process is as important as, if not more important than, the decision itself. Since we find merit in the appellant’s contention about failure of natural justice, on that sole ground and without entering into the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 16.12.2024 and remand the matter to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration of W.P(C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P (C) No. 2830 of 2022 5 in accordance with law and on their own merits after giving all the parties full opportunity of being heard. 14. However, we think that it would not be equitable to allow the Tribunal’s order dated 27th May, 2022 to operate pending the disposal of the two petitions. Tribunal has ordered remand to the Municipal Commissioner, and if the Municipal Commissioner revisits the matter pursuant to the remand, then such a revisit would prejudice the interest of both the parties. Therefore, pending the disposal of the writ petitions W.P (C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P(C) No. 2830 of 2022, the Tribunal’s order of remand shall remain stayed. 15. The parties to appear before the learned Single Judge on 16th of February, 2026, so that the learned Single Bench can indicate any fresh date, as per its convenience, for disposal of the two writ petitions. Once again, we clarify that we have not examined the rival contentions on the merits and, therefore, all contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter remain explicitly open. As noted earlier, the Tribunal’s order dated 27th May, 2022, remanding the matter to the Municipal Commissioner, shall remain stayed until the final disposal of W.P (C) No. 2671 of 2022 and W.P (C) No. 2830 of 2022. 16. The Appeal is disposed of, in the above terms without any order for cost(s). (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 02, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. Uploaded on 03.02.2026