The State Of Jharkhand & Anr vs M/S Alternative For India Development
2025 Latest Caselaw 4221 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand & Anr vs M/S Alternative For India Development on 24 June, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar

                               -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           Civil Review (Filing) No. 7931 of 2024
                                ----

The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... ... Petitioners Versus M/s Alternative for India Development ... ... Respondent

-------

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

------

For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III For the Respondent : Mr. M.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate Mrs. Lavanya Godidia Mittal, Advocate Mr. Yashdeep Kanhai, Advocate Miss. Divya Choudhary, Advcoate

--------

th Order No. 09 : Dated 24 June, 2025

1. Perused the office note dated 18.06.2025 and

24.06.2025.

2. Pursuant thereto, Vakalatnama has been field on behalf

of petitioner nos. 1 and 2.

3. So far defect no. 15 and 22 are concerned, that has

partly been removed, as pagination certificate is required to

be corrected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted since the tenure of former Oath Commissioner has

expired and new Oath Commissioner has come and further

the defect(s) is formal in nature, as such the same may be

ignored.

4. However, I.A. No. 13490 of 2024 has been filed for

ignoring defect no. 15.

5. Learned counsel for the submitted that the defect no.

15, as pointed out by the office, is formal in nature, as such

the same may be ignored.

6. This Court considering the fact that the defect no. 15, as

pointed out by the office, is formal in nature, as such the

same is hereby ignored.

7. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.

13490 of 2024 stands disposed of.

8. So far defect nos. 12, 19 and 22 are concerned

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners.

9. We have perused the supplementary affidavit and found

that the defect no. 12, pertains to grounds are missing; defect

no. 19 pertains to fee of Rs. 10 is missing in certified copy of

judgment and defect no. 22 pertains to Photocoy of impugned

order is not to be made annexure.

10. So far defect no. 12 is concerned, grounds have been

mentioned in the supplementary affidavit; so far defect no. 19

is concerned the authentication fee has been filed and further

so far defect no. 22 is concerned, that has partially been

removed and rest could not be removed due to completion of

tenure of the concerned Oath Commissioner, as such partial

defect may be ignored.

11. This Court considering the submission advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the

supplementary affidavit at flag A is of the view that other

defects have been removed and partial defect so far defect no.

22 is concerned, is ignored.

12. Office is to verify and place the matter under

appropriate heading.

13. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondent has submitted that review petition has been

filed after delay of 429 days for which delay condonation

application has been filed but copy of the same has same

being I.A. No. 12989 of 2024 has not been given to him.

14. Upon this, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III

appearing for the petitioners has submitted that copy of I.A.

No. 12989 of 2024 shall be handed over in course of the day.

15. List this case on 9th July, 2025 under appropriate

heading.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Alankar/