2026:JHHC:8482-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 53 of 2024 With I.A. No. 4182 of 2024 Rana Moti Lal Singh, S/o Late Niranjan Prasad Singh, R/o Kaushlaya State Block B-301, Bandar Bagicha, Phulwari, Patna (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Excise (H.Qr.), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi ... … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG ----- Order No. 5 Dated: 25.03.2026 I.A. No. 4182 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application seeks condonation of delay of 777 days in filing the review petition. 3. The office report indicates that the delay is in fact 1116 days and not merely 777 days. 4. We enquired of the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any supplementary affidavit would be filed to explain the inordinate delay. She, however, submits that she would argue the matter based upon the grounds raised in the application and the affidavits supporting the application. 5. In the I.A., the first reason is that the order dated 13.12.2018 of which review is applied for was made available, or rather the 2026:JHHC:8482-DB 2 certified copy was made available only on 11.03.2019. Now, this cannot be a ground to explain delay of 777 days or 1116 days in filing the review petition. Perhaps realizing that the above grounds would not constitute the immediate cause, from paragraph nos. 4 to 12, the petitioner has pleaded about how, on his superannuation he went to Patna. He pleaded that his advocates at Ranchi lost his contact number because his mobile phone suddenly stopped functioning. Then, there is reference to Covid-19 pandemic and a casual statement that the petitioner also lost the contact number of his counsel and could not make any contact with the counsel. There is also a casual statement about the health issues. There is a statement about the shifting of the Court’s office from Doranda to Dhurwa as if, this distance was considerable. 6. The application contains very casual and non-serious statements which are hard to believe. Practically, whatever reasons that have come to the mind, have been casually set out in the application. 7. The reasons set out in the application do not constitute any sufficient cause. Therefore, we dismiss this application. 8. As a consequence, the review petition will not survive and is also disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 25, 2026 Manish/Ritesh N.A.F.R Uploaded on 01.04.2026