2026:JHHC:8324-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 77 of 2026 --------- Sri Rani Sati Foods & Grains Private Limited, Ranchi through its Director namely Sushil Kumar Poddar, aged about 50 years, Son of Ramjiwan Poddar, having its registered office at Shri Rani Sati Foods and Grains Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Anand Mani Building, Shri Vishnu Talkies Lane, Main Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 834001. ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Mr. Arava Rajkamal, Son of not known to the petitioner, posted as Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 3rd Floor, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Arpan Manjesh Ekka, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Navneet Toppo, A.C. to G.P.-I --------- 04/Dated:-24.03.2026 1. The instant contempt application has been filed for alleged non-compliance of order dated 01.05.2019 passed in L.P.A. No.347 of 2015. 2. Two affidavits have been filed one by way of an application being I.A. No.3742 of 2026 seeking exemption from personal appearance of the O.P. No.2-Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand and another show cause. I.A. No. 3742 of 2026 3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for seeking exemption from personal appearance for the reason that the Secretary concerned has gone to New Delhi to attend National Level Departmental Summit at SCOPE Convention Centre, SCOPE Complex New Delhi. 2026:JHHC:8324-DB 2 4. Further, it has been stated that the order passed by this Court substantially has been complied with, since, a sum of Rs.81,28,136/- has been transmitted in the account of the petitioner after deciding his claim in pursuance to the order passed by this court which is the subject matter of the present contempt case. A similar statement has been made in the show cause also. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the quantification of amount is not being acceptable to the petitioner and as such, he wants liberty to question the quantification of the amount by raising the grievance before the appropriate forum. 6. There is no opposition by the learned counsel appearing for the State. 7. This Court considering the fact that the order substantially has been complied with and as such, there is no need to proceed further. 8. Accordingly, contempt application is closed and disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to question the quantification of the said amount before the appropriate forum, if the petitioner so wishes. 9. Consequently, I.A. No. 3742 of 2026 also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) March 24, 2026 Kunal/vikas uploaded 28.03.2026