The Secretary vs Torish Yadav
2026 Latest Caselaw 770 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Secretary vs Torish Yadav on 5 February, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                        ( 2026:JHHC:3079-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Civil Review No. 122 of 2025

The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi now General
Manager (Personnel & General Administration) Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited, office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
                                              ---          ---    Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. Torish Yadav, Son of Sri Biru Gope, resident of Village Labga, P.O.
   Balkudra, P.S. Basal, District Ramgarh.
2. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Energy,
   Government of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
   District Ranchi.
3. The Chairman cum Chief Managing Director, Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C.
   Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, through its Chairman cum
   Managing Director having its office at Engineering Bhawan, H.E.C.,
   Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                                            ---          ---   Opp. Parties
                                        ---

CORAM:              Hon'ble The Chief Justice
                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
                                    ---

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

---

02 / 05.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This review petition is nothing but an attempt to reargue the matter by

simply pointing out that the judgment and order dated 28.06.2023 was in

fact uploaded on 21.08.2023. Firstly, no such fact appears to have been

pointed out when the order of which review is applied for, was made.

3. However, even if we consider that the order was uploaded on

21.08.2023, still, sufficient cause was required to be shown for 245 days

delay in instituting this appeal. The Appeal was instituted only on

24.05.2024 i.e. 245 days beyond the date of uploading of the judgment

and order dated 28.06.2023.

4. The explanation provided is far from satisfactory. Even after the order

was uploaded, there is no explanation why nothing was done up to

26.09.2023. Even from 26.09.2023 to 07.03.2024, cursory reasons about

the file moving from table to table were pleaded. Precisely upon

considering that such movement does not constitute sufficient cause, the

order dated 28.10.2024 was made.

5. There is no error, much less, any error apparent on the face of record. In

fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that even antecedent delay is

required to be explained. Here, there is no explanation whatsoever for

the antecedent delay. The explanation for the post limitation period

expiry delay is also far from sufficient.

6. Accordingly, we see no good ground to review our order dated

28.10.2024.

7. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this review petition without any

order for cost (s).

8. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) February 05, 2026 Ranjeet/Rahul Uploaded on 05.02.2026