IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

L.P.A. N. 208 of 2017

--
1. Ashok Kumar Pandey son of Kedarnath Pandey, resident of
village Nawadih P.O and P.S Domchanch,District Koerma
2.Sunil Kumar Singh @ Singh son of Sudhir Prasad Singh,Resident
of village Nandani Nagar P.O and P.S Deoghar District Deoghar.
3. Munna Khan son of late Rabul Khan Resident of village Dhujudih
P.O Bhendra P.S Nawadih Dist. Bokaro
4. Balram Mahto son of Shree Hardayal Mahto resident of village
Chandipur,P.O Chabndipur P.S Kasmar Dist Bokaro.
5. Bikash @ Kumar Sinha son of Upendra Kumar Sinha,Resident
of village Dasadih P.O Doranda P.S. Rajdhanwar Dist Giridih.
6. Deepak Singh son of Govind Singh Resident of village kero P.O
and P.S Kero District Deoghar
7.Moinuddin son of Mubarak Resident of village Patuwabad P.O
and P.S Madhupur,Disttrict Jamtara.
8. Panchaman Tiwary @ P. Tiwary son of Late Madan Prasad
Tiwary,Resident of village Koledih P.O. Sabijore P.S Sarat
Dist.Deoghar.
9. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Mahto son of Hardayal Mahto
Resident of village Chandipur P.O Chandinpur P.S Kasmar Dist
Bokaro. . ..Appellants
Versus
1. The C.M.D-cum-Chairman JUVNL of Dhurwa P.O and P.S
Dhurwa Dist Ranchi.
2. The Managing Director (Distribution) JUVNL at Dhurwa P.O and
P.S Dhurwa District Ranchi
3. The General Manager JUVNL at Dhurwa P.O and P.S Dhurwa
District Ranchi ...Respondents
---

CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
For the Appellants : M/s. K.K Ojha &
Rakesh Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents : Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.

02/ Dated 15.09.2017:

(Oral Order)
Per D.N.Patel, A.C.J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the

appellants (original petitioners) being aggrieved and feeling
dissatisfied by the order dated 7.3.2017, passed by the learned
Single Judge, which reads as under :-
“ Notice.
2. Mr.Om Prakash Tiwari, the learned counsel
 -2-
appears and accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-JUVNL and seeks four weeks' time for
filing response.
3. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed two weeks
thereafter.
4. Post the matter after eight weeks.
5.Prayer for interim relief is refused”.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellants (original petitioners)

submitted that they are in search of interim order, which has been
refused, nonetheless, the writ petition is adjourned. The grievance
ventilated by these appellants can be ventilated before the learned
Single Judge. The final order is yet to be passed.
3. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and
the same is,therefore, dismissed.

(D.N. Patel, A.C.J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra,J.)

SD/SB