1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

C.M.P. No. 310 of 2022

Sanjay Kumar Mishra ... … Petitioner

Versus
Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro & Ors. … … Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : None
For the Opposite Parties : None
-----
Order No. 09 Dated: 06.01.2023

The present CMP has been filed for restoration of W.P.(C)

No. 1509 of 2017, which stood dismissed on 05.01.2018 due to non-
compliance of peremptory order dated 08.12.2017.

Reference may be made to order dated 18.11.2022, the

relevant part of which reads as under:
“It is, however, surprising that information of
dismissal of the writ petition due to non-compliance of
the aforesaid order was communicated to the learned
counsel for the petitioner as late as on 07.06.2022
vide office memo dated 06.06.2022. This suggests
serious laches on the part of the concerned official of
the registry.
Hence, the Registrar General is directed to hold
an enquiry in this regard and to submit a report to this
Court within three weeks.
Put up this case under the heading “For Orders”
after three weeks.”

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Registrar General has

submitted the report on perusal of which it appears that the Joint
Registrar (Judicial) conducted an enquiry wherein the
explanations/statements of following officials of this Court have been
taken.

1. Amitesh Kumar, the then Assistant, Writ Pending Section

2. Emanuel Praveen Minz, the then Assistant Registrar-cum- I/c

Dealing Assistant

3. Shail Roylen Hembrom, Assistant

4. Prem Prakash Murmu, Assistant

Amitesh Kumar, the then Assistant, Writ Pending Section

 2

has submitted in his explanation that the mistake was committed in

December, 2017. After a long time, it is difficult to recall the
circumstances in which the mistake was committed. He was
transferred to the Writ Pending Section from Judge’s Library Section
and took charge of the concerned record in August 2017. The
peremptory order in the concerned file was passed on 08.12.2017
and the peremptory date was ending on 05.01.2018. It was the time
when, he had worked only for few months on that table and he was
not very conversant with the work. He has further submitted that the
concerned file returned from Hon’ble Court on 09.12.2017 and
inadvertently, he could not write the peremptory date in the new
forward diary of 2018 since the same was not provided to him till
date. Hence, he had written it on the last page of the forward diary
of 2017 for his convenience so that he could update it later in the
new Diary on 2018. Meanwhile, from 15.12.2017, he was assigned
another stage to work and he stopped working on the earlier table.
Consequently, his focus was shifted to the new assignment to arrange
the work on the new stage allotted to him. He, therefore,
unintentionally failed to intimate the newcomer Dealing Assistant,
who started working on his earlier table and it was not common for
the new Dealing Assistant to presume that the peremptory date
would be mentioned on the last page of the forward diary.
Consequently, feeding DFD of this file in computer Telnet and taking
further steps were missed.

On the basis of the aforesaid explanation, the Registrar

General has concluded in his report that Amitesh Kumar, the then
Dealing Assistant of Writ Pending Section was the custodian of the
file of W.P.(C) No. 1509 of 2017 on 05.01.2018 i.e., the date on which
the said case stood dismissed due to non-compliance of the
peremptory order dated 08.12.2017. It was his duty to communicate
learned counsel for the petitioner of the said case regarding the fact
of dismissal of the case for non-compliance of the peremptory order.
However, due to his laches/negligence, the same was communicated
to learned counsel for the petitioner as late as on 07.06.2022.

I have perused the explanation submitted by Amitesh

 3

Kumar, the then Dealing Assistant, Writ Pending Section and have not
found the same satisfactory.

Hence, the Registrar General is directed to get a

disciplinary proceeding initiated against the said official and
thereafter to proceed in accordance with law.

Since no one appears on behalf of the parties put up this

case under appropriate heading in the next week for consideration of
CMP on merit.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish