2025:JHHC:19978 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3291 of 2022 M/s Ramesh Kumar, through its proprietor Ramesh Kumar, S/o Late Bihari Lal, R/o Baraik Mohalla, Gumla, PO & PS-Gumla, District- Gumla … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 3. The District Welfare Officer, Chatra … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GA-III ----- 07/22.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with suitable interest as the demand draft of said amount was submitted by the petitioner in the office of the respondents with a view to participate as per tender notice dated 25.03.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a government order supplier and at the relevant time, he was also the supplier for the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. On 25.03.2011, a tender notice was invited by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (concerning the Welfare Department) for supply of foodgrains etc. to the residential schools running under the control of the Welfare Department, Chatra. Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted the tender papers along with the relevant documents as well as a demand draft bearing D.D. No. 069134 dated 04.04.2011 for Rs.30,000/- before the respondent no. 3 on 2025:JHHC:19978 2 06.04.2011 so as to take part in the said tender process. 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner was declared L-1 in most of the articles and accordingly he was given assurance that the supply order for the said items would be issued in its favour, however, no such supply order was issued subsequently. After waiting for a considerable period, the petitioner vide letter No. 1172 dated 09.07.2014 requested the respondent no. 3 to return Rs.30,000/- which was submitted by way of demand draft, however, the same was not responded. The petitioner thereafter also gave legal notices to the respondents seeking return of the said amount, however, no step was taken in that regard by the respondents, which has compelled it to prefer the present writ petition. 4. It is further submitted that since Rs.30,000/- was submitted by the petitioner as an advance at the time of participating in the tender and since no work order was issued to it, it is entitled for return of the same which has illegally been withheld by the respondents. 5. Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GA-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that since the said demand draft submitted by the petitioner while participating in the tender process was not appropriated by the respondents, they are not liable to make refund of the said amount to the petitioner. 6. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for 2025:JHHC:19978 3 the respondents refers to the office note dated 17.08.2022 made by some official of the State Bank of India, Chatra Branch on the letter dated 10.08.2022 issued by the District Welfare Officer, Chatra to the Branch Manager of the Chatra Branch of the said Bank (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). 7. In paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, it has been admitted that Demand Draft No. 069134 was submitted by the petitioner. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit that due to fire outbreak in the concerned office i.e., ‘Vikash Bhawan’ on 02.11.2017, no trace of the said demand draft was found. 8. Thus, the respondents have admitted the fact that the aforesaid demand draft was submitted by the petitioner while participating in the tender, but the same got subsequently destroyed due to fire outbreak in the office. Under the said circumstance, it is inferred that the demand draft submitted by the petitioner got destroyed in the office of the respondents for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. While obtaining the said demand draft, the petitioner had deposited the said amount with the bank and in absence of the said demand draft, the Bank may not be in a position to release the amount of the demand draft to the petitioner. Therefore, non-return of the said demand draft by the respondents has certainly put it to a loss for no fault on its part. 9. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that since the said demand draft was not appropriated by them, they are not responsible for refund of the said amount to the 2025:JHHC:19978 4 petitioner, is completely misconceived as due to the fault on the part of the respondents, the petitioner could not take back the demand draft so as to get it encashed in the bank. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- along with simple interest @ 8% per annum to the petitioner from the date of submission of the said demand draft in the office of the respondents, till its payment. The said payment shall positively be made by the said respondents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish