Advocates' Association Through Its ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2104 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Advocates' Association Through Its ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P. (PIL) No. 2894 of 2021
Advocates' Association through its Treasurer, Dheeraj Kumar
                                                ... ... ... Petitioner
                    Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Another
                                               ... ... ... Respondents
                       With
Cont. Case (Civil) No 283 of 2020, W.P.(PIL) No. 1252 of 2020, W.P.
(PIL) No. 2797 of 2021, W.P. (PIL) No. 3018 of 2021, W.P. (PIL) No. 5126
of 2021, W.P. (PIL) No. 460 of 2022.
                    ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate For Jhar. Vidhan Sabha: Mr. Anil Kumar, S.C. (J.V.S.) Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II

---------

60/Dated: 18.03.2026

1. At the request of the learned Advocate General and with much

reluctance, we adjourn the matter to 23rd March, 2026.

2. These petitions concern appointments to the State Information

Commissioner and Lokayukta. The learned senior counsel for the

petitioners has pointed out that for more than four years these positions

have been vacant, as a result of which the legislations under which these

positions are created and make to function, are frustrated.

3. From the previous orders we note that a long rope was given to the

State in a fond hope that appointments would be made within reasonable

time. At least prima facie, we agree with the learned senior counsel for

the petitioners that there is no will to make these appointments.

Otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend how, for the last over more than

four years these positions were allowed to remain vacant.

4. We also note that on every occasion one difficulty after the other is

cited. Again, in the fond hope that this would be the last occasion, some

accommodation is granted. However, we find that even on the next

occasion, there is no compliance and we are presented with yet some

other difficulty. The difficulties, are by no means insurmountable but they

are repeatedly put forth, possibly under the impression that this Court,

acting reasonably, will not invoke its jurisdiction under the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 even if directions are issued for filling up the positions in

a time bound manner. This impression needs to be corrected.

5. Despite the above, in the fond hope that the learned Advocate

General will impress upon all concerned the seriousness of the issue and

the necessity to make immediate appointments in accordance with law,

we adjourn the matter.

6. Stand over to 23rd March, 2026 high on board.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 18, 2026 APK/VK