2025:JHHC:17017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1966 of 2023 M/s. Pravin Machinery Stores through its Power of Attorney Holder Gulzar Hussain aged about 25 years, son of Mohammad Tahir Hussain, resident of near Masjid Bindhudham Path Jhiktia, P.O. Barharwa, P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, Jharkhand. ..... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Rural works Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj. 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural works Department, Monitoring, Abhiyantran Bhawan, Near Vikash Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural works Department, Work Division, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, District - Sahebganj. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate ----- 7/25.06.2025 The instant writ petition is before this Court for quashing the letter contained in Memo No.736(ANU.) dated 22.09.2022 issued under the signature of Respondent No.5, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of the amount of Rs.19,36,341/- in relation to the work performed pursuant to agreement No.3F2/2019-20 has been rejected and also to direct the respondents to supply the order as contained in letter No.248 dated 22.04.2021, whereby it has been claimed as communicated by another letter as contained in Memo No.386 dated 30.04.2022. 2. The petitioner was awarded contract by agreement number 3F2/2019-20 for construction of 2.58 KM of road running from Fudkipur (Gohalbari) to Nurai in Block Udhwa, district Sahebganj. 3. As per the terms of agreement, which was executed on 26.06.2019 the date of completion of the work was 19.06.2020. The term of agreement provided that if the work was not completed within the stipulated time, 10% of deduction on the agreement value to be made. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by deduction of 10% of the agreement value by which Rs. 19,63,341/- has been withheld. 2025:JHHC:17017 2 5. Petitioner had earlier moved this Court in WP(C) No. 4092 of 2021 for the very same relief which was disposed of by order dated 23.03.2022, with liberty to prefer a fresh representation before the respondent No.5. The representation so filed has now been rejected and communicated by letter No. 22.09.2022 by respondent No. 5, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the work had been completed within stipulated period of time, which will be evident from the work completion certificate dated 10.3.2021 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of Executive Engineer RDD (RWA) Works Division, Sahigbanj, wherein the date of completion has been stated to be 19.06.2020 whereas the actual date of completion is 18.06.2020. 7. It has further been submitted that a report dated 01.12.2020, which is part of Annexure-13, under the signature of Executive Engineer RDD (RWA) Works Division, Sahigbanj will also show that the work had been completed within the stipulated period of time. 8. The earlier work completion certificate issued on 10.03.2021 is claimed by the Respondent to be withdrawn vide letter No.248 dated 22.04.2021. This was communicated after year vide letter No.386 dated 30.04.2022. The plea that the completion certificate issued on 10.03.2021 was withdrawn vide letter No.258 dated 22.04.2021 is falsified by the entry in the dispatch register where is visible interpolation as 2022 has been made 2021. 9. Sri Mohan Dubey appearing on behalf of respondent State submits that an administrative order by which the completion certificate was issued was duly withdrawn by subsequent letter. The work was not completed within time which is also evident that there is a specific provision of 10% deduction on the agreement value as per Clause-2 of the agreement and therefore the amount was deducted and no time extension was granted to the petitioner. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the both the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, it is evident that the release for the balance amount, revolves on the question if the work was completed within the stipulated time, as this is the sole ground for rejection of the writ petition. 11. Indisputably on 10.03.2021, the completion certificate is issued under the signature of Executive Engineer and is also reflected in the status of the work, the copy of which has been extracted as Annexure-5. 2025:JHHC:17017 3 12. From the impugned letter, the specific plea for denying the balance amount is regarding non-completion of work within stipulated time and has been stated that the work completion certificate had been withdrawn. The question arises can a public authority without assigning specific and cogent reason, withdraw a work completion certificate. If the earlier executive engineer had issued the work completion certificate without its actual completion, what action was taken against him is misconduct in discharge of his public duty. Delay of one year in service of notice to the Petitioner further clouds the case of the Respondent State. 13. It has been held in Unitech Ltd. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corpn., (2021) 16 SCC 35 39.6. In determining as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial. But equally, it is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted only on the basis that the dispute pertains to the contractual arena. This is for the simple reason that the State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract. 14. The present case is an instance, where first completion certificate is issued, then it is withdrawn without any explanation for the ‘U’ turn. There is also a delay of one year in communicating the withdrawal to the Petitioner. These are but example of capricious exercise of public duty, without any modicum of accountability. 15. In this view of matter denial of admitted dues, on the pretext of delay in its completion is not tenable. The impugned letter no.736(Anu) dated 22.09.2022 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 16. Respondent No.5 is accordingly directed make payment of admitted dues with interest @ 9% from the date of completion of work, within eight weeks after receipt of this order. 17. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. I.A. if any stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) R.Kumar