Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30938 (JHR)

M/S ARUN KUMAR SAH THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. ARUN KUMAR SAH v. THE EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

WPC/683/2025 · 2025-04-08

Rajesh Shankar

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:10710 1 W.P.(C) No.683 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.683 of 2025 ----- M/s. Arun Kumar Sah through its sole proprietor Mr. Arun Kumar Sah, aged about 53 years, s/o Ratan Sah, village-Fazil Khuthari, P.O.-Sukhari, P.S. Mehrma, Godda, Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The Eastern Coalfields Limited through its Chief-cum-Managing Director, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh and P.S. Salanpur District- West Bardhaman, West Bengal, PIN Code-713333. 2. The General Manager (I/C), Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Rajmahal Group of Mines Dhankunda, P.O. Bara Simra and P.S. Rajmahal District-Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Area Manager (PCD&E), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal Area Office, Dhankunda, P.O. Bara Simra and P.S. Rajmahal District- Godda, Jharkhand. 4. Dy. Manager (Finance), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal Area Office, Dhankunda, P.O. Bara Simra and P.S. Rajmahal District- Godda, Jharkhand. 5. Assistant Manager (Civil), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal Area Office, Dhankunda, P.O. Bara Simra and P.S. Rajmahal District-Godda, Jharkhand. 6. Assistant Engineer (Civil), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Rajmahal Area Office, Dhankunda, P.O. Bara Simra and P.S. Rajmahal, District Godda, Jharkhand. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Bajrang Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate ----- Order No.02 Date: 08.04.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to make payment of Rs.14,60,343/- to the petitioner as it has successfully completed the work of “levelling and dressing of sub-station campus by excavating cutting and filling of uneven land”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that E-Tender Notice No. ECL/ RJML/ GM(I/C)/ AE(C)/ e-Tender/ 19-20/682 2025:JHHC:10710 2 W.P.(C) No.683 of 2025 dated 21st March, 2020 was floated by the Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short “ECL”) on the official portal for execution of the aforesaid work. The petitioner being a successful bidder received the bid submission confirmation through eProcurement System of Coal India Limited. 3. It is further submitted that a letter of intent was also issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer (Civil), Rajmahal Area of the ECL accepting the petitioner’s bid and confirming the awarded work value of Rs.12,37,578.94/-. After receipt of letter of intent, the petitioner successfully completed the work within the stipulated time. Despite successful completion of the said work, the petitioner has not been paid any amount with respect to the same. Aggrieved with the said situation, the petitioner represented the General Manager (I/C), Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Rajmahal Group of Mines Dhankunda (the respondent no.2) for payment of its bill, however, the same remained un-responded which compelled it to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Bajrang Kumar, learned A.C. to Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner is required to be factually examined by the competent authority. Hence, if it prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.2, an appropriate decision will be taken by the said respondent within a time frame. 2025:JHHC:10710 3 W.P.(C) No.683 of 2025 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the prayer made 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.2. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.2 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative and on calling for the relevant records, shall take an appropriate informed decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/