Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/1326/2025 of SUSHIL KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 29 September 2026
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1326 of 2025 Sushil Kumar, aged about 62 years, son of Late Krishna Chandra Prasad, resident of 302, Green field Imperia, Sita Compound, Overbridge, P.O. +P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, (Jharkhand)-834001 ...
2026:JHHC:29407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1326 of 2025
Sushil Kumar, aged about 62 years, son of Late Krishna Chandra Prasad, resident of 302, Green field Imperia, Sita Compound, Overbridge, P.O.
+P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi, (Jharkhand)-834001 ... Petitioner(s)
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. Abu Bakar Siddique, son of not known to the petitioner, the Secretary, Department of Animal Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO+PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand).
... Opposite Party(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate
Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Aditya, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) :Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV
-------- Order No. 4 /Dated: 29th September 2026
A Civil Review No. 68 of 2026 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed by this Court with an observation that if the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Administrator wishes to exempt Rs. 76085/- then he may do so.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the writ application the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 76085/- to the competent authority, however, since the petitioner was not able to deposit the same as such the review application was filed which was disposed of.
3. This statement has not been disputed by learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4. So far as this contempt petition is concerned, a show-cause has been filed stating that no contempt is made out in view of the fact an order has been passed by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit Rs. 76085/- to the competent authority.
5. Having regard to the above, no contempt is made out and
2026:JHHC:29407
accordingly, the instant contempt petition stands dismissed.
6. It goes without saying that after depositing Rs. 76085/- or the amount being exempted by the competent authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the grievance in accordance with law.
7. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 29th September 2026 Amit Uploaded on 08/10/2026