Jharkhand High Court
Md. Mustakim Ansari And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. ... ... Opp. ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 534 of 2023
Md. Mustakim Ansari and Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Anr. ... ... Opp. Parties
With
Civil Review No. 51 of 2023
Dhanbad Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate (In Contempt)
For the Bank : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate (In Contempt)
For the State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
---
21/21.03.2025 The learned counsel for the petitioner in civil review seeks
review of the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.6160 of
2015 and has referred to paragraph 19 of the said judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the contempt case has
submitted that the contempt application has been filed in connection
W.P.(S) No.6160 of 2015 and paragraph 19 of the judgment is under
the paragraphs dealing with W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015. He has
submitted that the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015 have not
been made party in the civil review application and if any finding or
discussion in connection with paragraph 19 of the order under review
is considered, the same would have direct bearing in connection with
the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that a separate contempt
case being Cont. (Civil) Case No.578 of 2023 has been filed by writ
petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015 and in that case, the State has
preferred LPA which has been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner, in response, has
submitted that the review petitioner is only aggrieved by the direction
that the payment of the amount, upon receipt from the State, shall be
adjusted against the grant-in-aid to be released by the State
Government.
5. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that they have
filed one LPA.
6. The learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that
LPA filed against the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015 has
been dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2024 in LPA No.236 of 2024.
A copy of the order has been produced before this Court. However, he
submits that LPA against the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6160 of
2015 is pending, in which, the defect is yet to be removed and
necessary steps have been taken by the State for removal of
defects/listing of case.
7. The review petition has been filed in connection with the order
passed in W.P.(S) No.6160 of 2015 but the paragraph which has been
sought to be reviewed i.e. paragraph 19 of the order which has been
referred to by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is falling
under the discussion in W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015.
8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner is directed to
make the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No.5986 of 2015 also as party in
the present proceedings so that it may be ascertained that if this review
petition is entertained in connection with W.P.(S) No. 6160 of 2015,
any right of the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 5986 of 2015 would be
affected or not.
9. Post these cases on 04.04.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/-
