2026:JHHC:10295 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.748 of 2026 ------ Anil Kumar Palsania, son of Hazarimal Palsania, Proprietor of Plastico, resident of Gwala Basti, Gaytri Mandir Road, Telco, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The President, District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum at Sakchi Court Campus, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 3. Santosh Pathak, S/o Ramashish Pathak, Proprietor of M/s Abhinav Enterprises, resident of JF 2/2, Tripple Story, Chotta Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Swaroop, AC to AAG-II ------ 05/ 08.04.2026 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for stay of further proceedings in connection with Execution Case No.18 of 2025, pending in the Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, on the ground that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, is presently non-functional and his appeal is pending before it. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that if the stay is not granted and the Execution Case is allowed to be proceeded and the order is executed, then the entire appeal will 2026:JHHC:10295 2 become infructuous. One of the main points which has been raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the complainant cannot come within the definition of "Consumer", as he is a businessman and he purchases the materials from different sources including the petitioner and supplies them to his subsidiaries. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents argues that the substandard material was supplied to the opposite party, which resulted in huge loss as the Railways rejected the material. He admits that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not functional. 5. Considering the fact that appeal of the petitioner is pending; the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not functional and the Execution Case is proceeding, I am inclined to stay the Execution Proceeding, thus the proceedings in connection with Execution Case No.18 of 2025, pending in the Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, shall remain stayed. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.2451 of 2026 for stay of the proceedings, stands allowed accordingly. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 08th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 16.04.2026