Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/239/2026 of MADHUKAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 239 of 2026 --------------- Madhukar, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Jawahar Lal, resident of Jail Road, Shivaji Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Phulwari, District-Patna (Bihar); ........Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2026:JHHC:29583
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Cvl.) No. 239 of 2026
---------------
Madhukar, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Jawahar Lal, resident of Jail Road, Shivaji Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Phulwari, District-Patna (Bihar);
........Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shri Abinash Kumar, father's name not known to the petitioner, Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O, Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi;
3. Shri K.K.Verma, father's name not known to the Petitioner, Director, Jharkhand Renewal Energy Development Agency (JREDA) having its registered Office at: 3rd Floor, SLDC Building, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi; ...... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the OP-State : Mr. J.F Toppo, GA-V For the JREDA
: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
Order No.04/Dated: 30th September, 2026
1. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the order passed by the learned writ Court a revision order has been passed on 09.09.2026 by the concerned opposite parties which has been appended as Annexure-A to the show cause dated 15.09.2026.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the present contempt case with liberty to challenge the said revision order by filing appropriate application before the competent Forum.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the concerned opposite parties has raised no objection.
4. Leave, as sought for, is granted.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Contempt Case is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said revision order before competent Forum.
2026:JHHC:29583
2
6. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Dated:30.09.2026 Sudhir