Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28734 (JHR)

M/S THE JANA ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED THROUGH DILIP JANA, CONSTITUENT ATTORNEY v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THRO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION

WPC/6553/2024 · 2025-04-21

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:11701-DB p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6553 of 2024 M/s The Jana Enterprises represented through Dilip Jana, Constituent Attorney, Son of Bamapada Jana, aged about 37 years, resident of 161, Bagpota Road, Sarsuna Sonali Park, P.O. & P.S.-Sarsuna, District-South Pargana, West Bengal-700061. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Science through its Medical Superintendent cum Chairperson, Procurement Committee, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science at RIMS Circle, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009. 3. The Chairperson, Procurement Committee, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science at RIMS Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009. 4. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science at RIMS Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009. 5. The Deputy Medical Superintendent, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science at RIMS Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009 ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Advocate Ms. Aulia Begum, Advocate Md. Azam, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Sharon Toppo, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 21.04.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for 1st respondent and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner had been granted an extension of the work order issued on 06.07.2021 till 06.07.2025 vide a proceeding dt. 2025:JHHC:11701-DB p. 2 29.08.2023. Therefore, the respondents could not have issued a Notice Inviting Tender vide Annexure-4 covering the period up to 06.07.2025. 3. This legal position is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. 4. Therefore, the NIT in question, i.e., Annexure-4, shall be construed as operative only from 07.07.2025 and not for any period prior thereto. 5. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off. 6. All pending applications, if any shall stand disposed off. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2