( 2026:JHHC:27494 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 325 of 2026 ------ Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Banke Bihari Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o Gandhinagar, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, District –Dhanbad. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Secretariat, HEC, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District –Ranchi. 2. The District Security Committee through its Chairman namely Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. & District – Dhanbad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District – Dhanbad. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Yogesh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-I : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to G.P.-I ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11.09.2026 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in the said W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 was listed before this Bench on 23.07.2025 but when the matter was called out in the court, the counsel for the petitioner namely Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha could not appear in this Court, resulting in dismissal of the same. It is next submitted that the mother-in-law of the counsel for the petitioner due to her old age reasons, was admitted in hospital on 19.07.2025 and released on 23.07.2025 itself and there is no one else in the family of the counsel for the petitioner to look after her. Therefore, she could not attend the proceedings of the court on 23.07.2025. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 and unless W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List W.P. (C) No. 5300 of 2012 under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11.09.2026 Sonu-