THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.41 of 2025 Ran Bijay Singh & Ors. … Appellants Versus State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro & Ors. … Respondents ----------

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Appellants : Mr. Sandip Kumar Burnwal, Advocate For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, Advocate -----

Order No.07/Dated: 09.12.2025 I.A. No. 16430 of 2025

1. Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent no.3 has filed the instant interlocutory application on his own, being I.A. No. 16430 of 2025 for withdrawal of vakalatnama representing the caveator/respondent no.3 on the strength of power of attorney holder, namely, Chetlal Mahto.

2. It has been stated in the instant interlocutory application that he is merely the power of attorney holder of the respondent no.3, but now respondent no.3 has already put his appearance being represented by Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel, hence, he does not intend to pursue the case on behalf of the power of attorney holder and for the aforesaid purpose, the present interlocutory application has been filed.

3. Copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties including Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, who has authorized the said Chetlal Mahto to be his power of attorney holder.

4. No opposition has been made on behalf of the respective parties including Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3.

5. Considering the reason assigned and submission made by the learned counsel, Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, the present interlocutory application is being allowed, keeping the fact into consideration that respondent no.3 is personally contesting the case being represented by Mr. L.C.N. Sahdeo and, as such, there is no need of the power of attorney holder.

6. Accordingly, the vakalatnama filed by Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel representing the said Chetlal Mahto as to put caveat, is hereby, allowed to be withdrawn.

7. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 16393 of 2025

8. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the Chetlal Mahto for furnishing the explanation as per the cognizance taken by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2025 holding that the conduct of the said Chetlal Mahto is prima facie contemptuous.

9. The explanation has been furnished in the instant interlocutory application saying that whatever has been done and is said to be the conduct of the said Chetlal Mahto that is due to the inadvertence and the nervousness having no malafide intention.

10. It has been stated that in future, the said Chetlal Mahto will be extremely careful and shall never repeat such conduct. He, therefore, has tendered unqualified apology.

11. This Court considering the explanation so furnished, is hereby, allowing the same and not proposing to proceed further by initiating the proceeding for contempt.

12. The instant interlocutory application, accordingly, stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No.41 of 2025

13. No interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Gupta, however, Manoj Kumar Gupta who is physically present in this Court has sought for a week’s time to file his explanation.

14. Time, as sought, is being allowed.

15. List this case on 16th December, 2025.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

09th December, 2025 R.K/Rajnish