Uranium Corporation Of India Limited ... vs Gunaram Murmu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5325 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Uranium Corporation Of India Limited ... vs Gunaram Murmu on 29 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                           2025:JHHC:12841-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Civil Review No.122 of 2024
                        -----

Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Government of India Enterprises, having its office at Turamdih, P.O. Sundarnagar, P.S. Jaduguda, District Singhbhum (East), PIN-832107, through its Manager (Personnel), namely, Sanjeev Ranjan, aged about 43 years, son of Bindeshwari Chaudhary, resident of Qr. No. C/1/2, UCIL Colony, Turamdih, PO & PS- Sundarnagar, District East Singhbhum, PIN-832107 (Jharkhand).

                                 ...    ...    Petitioner
                         Versus

1. Gunaram Murmu, aged about 31 years, son of Majhia Murmu, resident of Village Sarjamda (Doka Tola), P.O. & P.S. Parshudih, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

2. The State of Jharkhand.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

------

Order No. 04/Dated 29 April, 2025 th

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed

for condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the instant

review petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard

to the averments made in this application, we are of the

view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause

2025:JHHC:12841-DB

from preferring the review petition within the period of

limitation.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No.12472 of 2024 is allowed and

the 123 days' delay in preferring the review petition is

condoned.

4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for

the review petitioner, has submitted that in view of the

liberty granted by this Court, as has been referred at

paragraph 38 of the judgment dated 02.05.2024 sought to

be reviewed, does not intend to press the instant review

petition.

5. Such submission has been made in presence of

learned counsel for the State.

6. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed

as not pressed.

7. Pending interlocutory applications also stand

dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Birendra/