2025:JHHC:21923 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction) W.P. (C) No.6670 of 2023 ---- M/s K. K. Builder Pvt. Ltd. H.N-27, New Kalimati Road, P.o+P.s-Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Dist-West Singhbhum represented by its director Mr. Kumud Ranjan Pathak, (Male)aged about 48 years, S/o- Dharni Bhat Pathak, P.o- Baridih, P.s- Sidhgora, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831001. …. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The state of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Engineer In Chief-1, Water Resources Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Chief Engineer, WRD, Subernrekha Bhawan, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. 4. The Superintendent Engineer, WRD, Work Circle, Galudih, Jamshedpur. 5. The Executive Engineer, WRD, Subernrekha Canal Division-Ghatshila, Dist-East Singhbhum. 6. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Jamshedpur Circle. 7. The Commissioner of State Tax, Jharkhand at Ranchi. 8. The Secretary, State tax, Jharkhand at Ranchi.…. …. Respondent(s) ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I ---- 06/Dated: 05th August, 2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- “a. For issuance of appropriate writ, rule or direction upon the respondents for; b. For direction to reimburse/pay the deference amount of increased tax (GST) @ 8% as per SBD clause 13.5 of levy/taxes if levied after receipt of tenders from the bidders and also from the clauses of contract in section 13.5 of the standard bidding document in the various works departments of the government of Jharkhand. c. For Consequential direction to pay the interest upon the respondents to incorporate the provisions/order under GST Act 2017, the deference of Tax (GST) @ 8% along with interest to the petitioner.” 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. 2025:JHHC:21923 Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.6670 of 2023 4. The defects as pointed out by the office is as follows:- “1. Pages of the Annexures may be certified to be true. 2. Addressed portion may be corrected. 3. Statement regarding cause of action may be filed by S/A. 4. Court fees of Rs.30 and Rs.50/- is payable respectively for the affidavit and vakalatnama. 5. Advocate clerk Association stamp worth Rs.5/- is payable for the vakalatnama. 6. Vakalatnama for whom has not been mentioned on the vakalatnama. 7. Correction done in para-2 of the affidavit has not been authenticated by learned Oath Commissioner in the affidavit. 8. In Para-3 of the affidavit “true” word has not been mentioned. It may be verified or mentioned. 9. Statement regarding signing sworning and verifying the affidavit is missing in the affidavit. It may be filed by S/A. 10. Name of P.O. and P.S. with full postal details of the office/respondents may be mentioned in the cause title page. 11. Fresh or typed copy of Page 11 to 13, 17, 20 and 52 may be filed. 12. Typed copy of page 15, 16, 51 may be filed. 13. Heading and cause title may be corrected on index synopsis cause title. 14. Prayer in Para-1 does not match with prayer portion. It may be verified and prayer in para -1 may be incorporated in prayer portion by S/A. 15. Village name of director may be mentioned in vakalatnama, affidavit and cause title. 16. It may be stated that Annexure-3 is only relevant portion of the document or complete document may be filed by S/A. 17. Respondents has not been mentioned in cause title page. 18. In particulars of Annexure-2 in index, work may be added before agreement word. 19. Complete copy of the Annexure-2 may be filed by S/A or in Sub-Para-4 and index it may be mentioned that only relevant portion has been filed. 20. In para-7 date 26.05.2020 may be corrected and also in index synopsis and elsewhere if any. 21. Cause title may be mentioned in the Vakalatnama. 22. Nomenclature may be corrected.” 5. From the office note it appears that, till date, the above defects have not been removed. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition. 6. In view of the above, present writ petition is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amar/- Uploaded