YAMUNA PRASAD vs JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Advocate - PRABHASH KUMAR, ,AMRITA KUMARI,DR.ASHOK KR.SINGH — WPC/2167/2009
Disposed: Contested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010169352009
Filing Number
WPC/6546/2009
Filing Date
05-May-2009
Registration No
WPC/2167/2009
Registration Date
05-May-2009
Judge
Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Coram
Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Category
SERVICE RELATING TO STATE GOVT. ( 171 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.YAMUNA PRASAD
Adv. ABHAY KUMAR MISHRA,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI, ,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI,AMIT KUMAR TIWARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.JHARKHAND STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD Advocate - PRABHASH KUMAR, ,AMRITA KUMARI,DR.ASHOK KR.SINGH
-
2.The Divisional Manager
-
3.The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr.justice Sujit Narayan PrasadView PDF
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Yamuna Prasad (a Forest Guard) against the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and related respondents for non-prosecution on 06.05.2026. The petition was dismissed because no representative appeared for the petitioner during the hearing, despite the petitioner's counsel's name appearing on the cause list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-May-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
-
23-Mar-2026
Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
-
02-Jul-2012
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-May-2009
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/2167/2009
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Yamuna Prasad (a Forest Guard) against the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and related respondents for non-prosecution on 06.05.2026. The petition was dismissed because no representative appeared for the petitioner during the hearing, despite the petitioner's counsel's name appearing on the cause list. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts