Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4785 (JHR)

MOST. SUKRI DEVI ALIAS HIRIA DEVI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cont.(Cvl)/762/2025 · 2026-02-27

Sanjay Prasad, Sujit Narayan Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:JHHC:5936-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 762 of 2025 Most. Sukri Devi @ Hiria Devi aged about 63 years, W/o Late Mathur Ram, Resident of Village- Dumri, P.O. & P.S.- Dumri, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. …. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Akhouri Uday Prasad Sinha, Engineer in Chief-cum Addl. Commissioner- cum-Special Secretary, R.W. Department, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi, State of Jharkhand. 3. Shravan Kumar (incharge), Superintending Engineer, Rural Work Department Work Division, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 4. Shravan Kumar, Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 5. Jadhav Vijya Narayan Rao, Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. 6. Raj Kumar Agrawal, Accountant General, A & E, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. --- Opp. Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD --- For the Petitioner: Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA I For the Accountant General: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate --- 04 / 27.02.2026 Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party concerned has sought for leave to bring on record the show cause as the copies have already been supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Let the said show cause be taken on record. 3. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel has submitted that the order of the Writ Court has been complied with, since, a sum of Rs. 20,96,976.00/- (Twenty Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six Rupess) has been transferred in the account of the petitioner. 4. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner. 2 5. Considering the fact that the order of the Writ Court has already been complied with, there is no need to proceed any further. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped and Cont. Case (Civil) No. 762 of 2025 stands disposed of. 6. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Date: 27.02.2026 RKM.