2025:JHHC:21202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5203 of 2021 ----- Deepak Kumar Singhania, proprietor of M/s Sri Ganpati Associates, son of Late Mathura Prasad Singhania, resident of Durga Pathak Road, Nawatoli, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District - Palamau … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Chief Engineer-cum-Executive Director, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Ranchi 4. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Medininagar, Palamau 5. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Medininagar, Palamau …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G. Order No. 07 Dated: 31.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of Rs.16,96,056/- to the petitioner for execution of the construction work of HYDT pursuant to Agreement No. F2- 77 of 2016-17 dated 09.01.2017 executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner executed the construction work of HYDT under NRDWP Calamity Central Scheme pursuant to Agreement No. F2- 77 of 2016-17 and a completion certificate to that effect was also issued to him by the respondent no. 5, the payment for the said work i.e. Rs.16,96,056/- was not made to him due to unavailability of fund. The said fact would be evident from letter no. 1164 dated 27.07.2019 issued by the respondent no. 5 to the 2 respondent no.3. The petitioner repeatedly represented the respondents for payment of the said amount, however the same remained unresponded, which compelled him to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner’s aforesaid claim is required to be factually examined by the competent authority and hence, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 3 along with relevant documents, an appropriate decision will be taken by the said respondent within a time frame. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no. 3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 3, after calling for the relevant records from the concerned office and on providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take an appropriate informed decision within eight (08) weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/