2026:JHHC:8402-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1177 of 2024 With I.A No. 3822 of 2026 ---- Raj Kumar Gupta, aged about 60 years, son of Shri Ramcharitra Gupta, resident of Lal Pahari, Naya Bazaar Samiti, Ward No. 31, Lakhisarai, PO & PS Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai (Bihar) ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shri Sunil Kumar Baranwal, son of not known, presently posted as Secretary, Department of Industry, Mines & Geology Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004 3. Shri Vishal Sagar, son of not known, presently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar having its office at Deoghar, PO & PS- Deoghar Town, District-Deoghar 4. Shri Subhash Ravidas, son of not known, presently posted as District Mining Officer, Deoghar, having its office at Deoghar, PO & PS-Deoghar Town, District-Deoghar 5. Shri Arava Raj Kamal, son of not known, presently posted as Secretary, Dept. of Industry, Mines & Geology Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi-834004 ....Opposite Party(s) --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s): Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG --- 08/ Dated: 24th March 2026 1. The instant contempt case has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in L.P.A No. 534 of 2018. 2. This Court has passed an order on 10.03.2026 and in pursuance thereto one interlocutory application being I.A No. 3822 of 2026 as also a supplementary show-cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.5. 3. I.A No. 3822 of 2026 has been filed seeking exemption from the personal appearance of opposite party no.5 in view of the notice 2026:JHHC:8402-DB 2 issued by this Court under Rule 393 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules. 4. A reason has been assigned in the interlocutory application that the opposite party no.5-Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand has gone to attend a National Level Departmental Summit on 23rd and 24th March, 2026 at SCOPE Convention Centre, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi as a representative for the State of Jharkhand in the capacity of Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand and as such his personal appearance has been sought to be exempted. In addition to the same, it has also been stated that the order passed by this Court has been complied with since a sum of Rs. 96,11,500/- which has been allotted by the opposite party no.5 to the District Mining Officer, Deoghar on 11.03.2026 for onward payment in favour of the petitioner has already been paid. 5. This Court considering the reason assigned at paragraph no.19 of the interlocutory application is of the view that the reason which has been explained is fit to be accepted for exemption from personal appearance of opposite party no.5. 6. Accordingly, the personal appearance of opposite party no.5 is exempted and I.A No. 3822 of 2026 is disposed of. 7. We have considered the show-cause as also the order passed by this Court which is the subject matter of the present contempt case. The fact about the principal amount of Rs. 96,11,500/- having been paid in favour of the petitioner has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- which is to be paid on account of enhanced reserve of price bid, has not been paid. He has also imitated the fact that the reason for not making payment of the said amount is that the same has been directed to be paid upon verification of the document showing deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- by the settlee/lessee but at the moment the litigant concerned, the petitioner, is not in a position to trace out the documents that is the Challan in support of the proof of deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- . Therefore, he has sought for a liberty that the opposite party-authority may be asked to 2026:JHHC:8402-DB 3 consider the aforesaid amount after production of the documents for the purpose of making payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- if found to be paid by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the concerned opposite party has submitted that since there is already a direction at paragraph no. 26 of L.P.A No. 534 of 2018 as such there is no quarrel that if the writ petitioner produces the relevant documents, it will not be considered for the purpose of making payment. 9. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that the order since has been complied with as such the contempt proceeding is closed. 10. Accordingly, the instant contempt case is disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) 24th March 2026 Jk/Amit Uploaded on 26/03/2026