[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Mineral Development ... vs Om Prakash Singh Son Of Sri Birendra ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:1013-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.22 of 2026
------
1. Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. having
its office at Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda, P.O+P.S-Doranda, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Managing Director Jharkhand State Mineral Development
Corporation Ltd. having its office Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Doranda,
P.O+P.S-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Establishment Incharge, Jharkhand State Mineral Development
Corporation Ltd, Khanij Nigam Bhawan, Nepal House, Doranda,
P.O&P.S: Doranda, Dist: Ranchi .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Om Prakash Singh Son of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, resident of
Bhawan Nagar, Kanke Road, P.O:-Ranchi University, P.S:Gonda,
District-Ranchi.
2. Sinha Sanju, Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, resident of
Quarter No. B/948, Sector-II, P.O: Jagarnathpur, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District:-Ranchi.
3. Deo Charan Prajapati, Son of Sri Munilal Prajapati, resident of
Khanij Prayogashala Bhawan, J.S.D.D.C., Station road, P.O+P.S:-
Patratu, District-Ramgarh.
4. Yogesh Kumar Son of Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sharma, resident of
P.O-Sasang, P.S:-Chandwa, District-Latehar.
5. Ranjan Kumar Das Son of Sri Late Chandra Das, resident of
Saketnagar, P.O:-Hinoo, P.S:-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondent/Petitioner
6. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department Mines
& Geology Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal
House P.O-Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
7. The Secretary Department of Mines & Geology Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House P.O-Doranda, P.S.-
Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
8. Deputy Secretary Department of Mines & Geology Government of
2026:JHHC:1013-DB
Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House P.O-Doranda, P.S.-
Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
9. Under Secretary, Mines & Geology dept. Government of
Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House P.O-Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
.... .... Performa Respondents/Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the JSMDC : Mr. Manoj Kumar, S.C.
Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to S.C.
For Pvt. Respondents : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate
------
02/Dated 15.01.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an interlocutory application seeking condonation of
delay of 742 days in filing the appeal against the learned Single
Judge's Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022 in W.P.(S) No.6097
of 2016.
3. The learned Single Judge's order dated 22.09.2022 is a
common order in Writ Petition (S) Nos.5254 of 2016, 6097 of 2016,
6129 of 2016 and 6113 of 2016.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that LPAs
were filed against this very common order in the context of the
remaining three writ petitions after a delay of more than 700 days.
The condonation delay applications therein were, however,
dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents placed
2026:JHHC:1013-DB
on record an order dated 12.06.2025 disposing of I.A. No.7082 of
2025 in L.P.A. (Filing) No.11026 of 2024.
5. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in the order dated
12.06.2025, even this interlocutory application will have to be
dismissed.
6. In any event, we find that the delay in this interlocutory
application is not properly explained and does not constitute
sufficient cause.
7. The reasons given in the application are routine and concern
the movement of files from one table or authority to another. These
reasons hardly inspire any confidence.
8. Besides, the learned counsel for the respondents points out
that the respondents were forced to file a contempt petition because
the present appellants, without any reason, refused to comply with
the learned Single Judge's order dated 22.09.2022.
9. Several adjournments were sought in the contempt petition,
and finally, an assurance of compliance was given. Based upon such
assurance, the contempt petition was disposed of.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, points out that
after disposal of the contempt petition and contrary to the assurance
given before the learned Single Judge, the order of 22nd September,
2022 was still not complied with, forcing the original petition to file yet
another contempt petition. It is at this stage that the present appeal
was filed with a delay of 742 of days.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record
2026:JHHC:1013-DB
orders that support his above submissions. He submitted that the
delay is not at all explained, and the explanation lacks bona fides.
Since the above submissions are supported by records, we are
inclined to accept them. This is a case where the delay has not been
explained and does not constitute sufficient cause. Besides, there is
no bona fide in seeking condonation of such inordinate delay. The
over-two-year delay was only to harass the respondents by forcing
them to file two contempt petitions. Despite assurances of
compliance, there were defaults, after which this appeal was filed
after an inordinate delay.
12. Accordingly, we dismiss this application with a cost of Rs.
10,000/- payable within four weeks from today to the respondents in
equal proportion, i.e. Rs 2500 each.
13. We expect that the respondents are not forced to file yet
another contempt action to recover this cost.
14. As a result of the dismissal of the interlocutory application
being I.A. No.7278 of 2025, the present appeal is disposed of.
15. Interlocutory application and the appeal are thus disposed of
with costs.
16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
15.01.2026
Alankar-Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
