WPC/3822/2015 of JAI KRISHNA MAHATHA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS on 5 October 2026

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District-Deoghar

3. Suresh Mahatha, son of late Latu Mahtha, resident of village- Maheshmara, P.O., P.S and District-Deoghar .…. … Respondents

With W.P.(C) No.4677 of 2015

Jai Krishna Mahatha, son of late Jailal Pasi, resident of village- Maheshmara, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District-Deoghar ...... … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District-Deoghar

3. Suresh Mahatha, son of late Latu Mahtha, resident of village- Maheshmara, P.O., P.S and District-Deoghar

4. The Subdivisional Officer, Deoghar, P.O, P.S. and District-Deoghar .…. … Respondents

--------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner

:Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate

(in both cases) For the State : Mr. Vincent Marki, Advocate

(in W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2015)

: Mr. Suman Marandi, Advocate

(In W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 2015) For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate

(in both cases)

12/ 05.10.2026: I.A. No. 14021 of 2026 has been filed in W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2026 and I.A. No. 14020 of 2026 has been filed in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 2015 for substituting the name of legal heirs and successors of petitioner in both the cases.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, petitioner who is same in both the petitions has left for his heavenly abode and in view of that the name of legal heirs and successors of petitioner in both the cases may kindly be substituted.

3. Learned counsels for the State and respondent no.3 jointly oppose the prayer and submit that the petitioner has been dismissed from ( 2026:JHHC:29651 )

the post of Pradhan and therefore, the procedure of electing the Pradhan and if the petitioner has left for his heavenly above, there is other procedure to be adopted and in view of that they submit that substitution petition may kindly be dismissed.

4. W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2015 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondent no.2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Pradhan by reinstating him on the post of Pradhan of Mouza Maheshmara Subdivision, District-Deoghar.

5. Learned counsels for the State and respondent no.3 both jointly submit that so far prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 3822 of 2015 is concerned, that is revisable and revision lies before the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka.

6. W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 2015 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents to dismiss the respondent no.3 from the post of Pradhan of Mouza Maheshmara.

7. Learned counsels for the State and respondent no.3 both jointly submit that so far prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 2015 is concerned, that is appealable and appeal lies before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district.

8. In view of above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage seeks permission to withdraw both the writ petitions with liberty to find out alternative remedy, if so advised.

9. Learned counsels for the State and respondent no.3 have got no objection. 10 . Accordingly, both these writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt.05.10.2026 Satyarthi-