2025:JHHC:25005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 467 of 2023 M/s Vijay Kant Pandey, through one of its partners, Vijay Kant Pandey, Ranchi ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Sunil Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, Ranchi ….. Opposite Parties ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For O.P.No.1: Mr. Abhilash Kumar, A.C to G.P-II For O.P.No.2: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate ----- 29/22.08.2025 The present contempt application has been filed against the O.P.No.2 alleging wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1869/2022. 2. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2, while referring to paragraphs 9 & 10 of the supplementary show cause affidavit dated 29.03.2025 filed on behalf of the said opposite party, submits that the security deposit deducted by the Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited (JSBCCL) towards 8th and 9th final R/A bills has already been paid to the petitioner. Moreover, the 8th and 9th final R/A bills have also been paid to the petitioner. 3. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid order of this Court has now been complied. 4. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the security deposit deducted from 1st to 7th R/A bills has not yet been paid to the petitioner. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the liability of the opposite party-JSBCCL is only towards deduction of the security deposit as well as the R/A bills for the works which were executed by the petitioner after creation of the JSBCCL. 2025:JHHC:25005 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no case of contempt is made out against the O.P.No.2. 7. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P.No.2 is hereby dropped. 8. The present contempt application stands disposed of. 9. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse(s) as available under law for redressal of its subsisting grievance. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)