[2026:JHHC:11149] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.1032 of 2025 ------ K. Ganesh, aged about 63 years, son of Kuppon Swamy, resident of Namdhih Road, Burma Mines, PO & PS: Burma Mines, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus Ms. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. East Singhbhum, District: East Singhbhum … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-17-04-2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this C.M.P. has been filed with the prayer to restore the W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005, which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2024, to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2024. It is next submitted that W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 was listed before this Bench on 20.02.2024 and the prayer for time of the petitioner of W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 was allowed subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner of that Writ Petition with Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) and to file the proof of the same within four weeks from the date of that order but due to inadvertence and bonafide cause, the receipt in respect of the said deposit could not be filed within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2024. Now the petitioner has filed the proof of the said deposit with JHALSA which is kept at the brief. It is next submitted that non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2024 in W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 be readmitted to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party submits that the petitioner is deliberately delaying the disposal of the Writ Petition. It is next submitted that the opposite party will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is readmitted to its original file, hence, the opposite party be compensated adequately. Considering the facts of the case and the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 is directed to be restored to its original file, at the same stage, at which it was before its dismissal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party, through the counsel appearing in the record, within four weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this Writ Petition shall remain dismissed. The Registry is directed to list W.P. (L) No.4883 of 2005 after four weeks before the appropriate Bench if the learned counsel for the petitioner files the proof of the payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party through the counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 17.04.2026 Saroj/