IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 213 of 2025 Deep Ranjan, sole proprietor of M/s. Deep Ranjan son of Late Lalit Mohan Prasad, resident of Qr. No. F/132, Road No. 31, Hanuman Garhi, P.T.P.S. Patratu, P.O. & P.S.- Patratu, District- Ramgarh … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Jharkhand-cum-CMD, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL), Ranchi 3. The Managing Director (CMD), the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Ranchi 4. The Manager (Technical), the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Ranchi 5. The General Manager, the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Transmission Zone-I, Ranchi 6. The Manager, Transmission Sub-Division-I, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited, Hatia Ranchi …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 6 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, S.C. (JUVNL) ---- 02/22.01.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2,94,633/- to the petitioner for the following works : (i) Cleaning from wild grass and bushes of switchyard premises at 132/33 KV Grid Sub Station, Hatia-I in the month of May, 2022 and (ii) Removal of grass and bushes of 220/132 KV switchyard and its associated place at 220/132 KV Grid Sub Station, Hatia-II 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the direction of Manager, Transmission Sub-Division, Hatia-I, the petitioner had executed the aforesaid works. The estimated cost of first work was Rs.96,306/- and the second work was Rs.1,98,327/-. The said payment was however not made to the petitioner. He represented the respondent no. 5 - General Manager, the Jharkhand Urja Sancharan - 2 - W.P.(C) No. 213 of 2025 Nigam, Transmission Zone-I, Ranchi requesting inter alia to make payment of Rs.2,94,633/- which was received in the office of the said respondent on 12.08.2024, however the aforesaid amount has not yet been paid to the petitioner which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6, submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation seeking the aforesaid payment before the respondent no. 5, an appropriate decision will be taken 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 file a fresh representation seeking payment of the aforesaid amount before the respondent no. 5. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 5, after verifying the relevant records and on providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. If it is found that the petitioner has executed the aforesaid works, the respondent no. 5 shall ensure payment of the admitted amount for the same to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh