JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ANAND KUMAR SINGH V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

RANCHI, India, March 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 24:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks review of our order dated 06.02.2025, passed in W.P. (C) No. 3852 of 2024, to the extent it does not, according to the petitioner, grant the petitioner consequential relief. 3. Mr Gadodia submits that this Court, by the order dated 06.02.2025, had, in fact, struck down the orders terminating the petitioner's lease. He submitted that the decision in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors, (2003) 1 SCC 726, was cited before the Division Bench which passed the order dated 06.02.2025 to the effect that a petitioner ought to be ordinarily restored to the position in which he would have been, if the wrong complained against him would not have been done to him. He submitted that another Division Bench in the case of Dhanbad Wine v. State of Jharkhand & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2077, has also upheld this principle of restitution. He submitted that non-consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was duly cited, and, in any event, the failure to grant restitution amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record which should be corrected in this review petition. 4. Mr. Gadodia submitted that incidentally, this Court's order dated 06.02.2025 was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition instituted by the State of Jharkhand. He placed on record the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 23.05.2025 dismissing the State's Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13533/2025. 5. Mr Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondents-State, submitted that there was no case made out for review, particularly, since the order of termination was interfered with only on the ground of denial of natural justice. He submitted that in such a situation, it was always open to the State to comply with the principles of natural justice and reach a conclusion on that basis. Accordingly, he submitted that the review petition may be dismissed, now that this Court's order dated 06.02.2025 was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State's SLP. 6. We have considered the parties' rival contentions and perused the record. 7. The argument that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the State, we should not exercise our review jurisdiction does not appeal to us. Firstly, when the Special Leave Petition is dismissed, there is no question of merger. Secondly, it was the State's Special Leave Petition that was dismissed, not the present petitioner's Special Leave Petition. Therefore, this review petition cannot be dismissed for non-maintainability.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x1rjgPHWgdRBiZQmKc%2F5s18ruJGJpLK7MNmUAvIm8CuW&caseno=C.Rev./40/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010118982025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.