2025:JHHC:19460 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.924 of 2024 ----- Binod Kumar Singh, S/o Late Laxman Singh, resident of Rajendra Nagar, Ulidih, P.O. & P.S. Mango, District East Singhbhum. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Project, Chandil Project Swarnrekha Bhawan, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District East Singhbhum. 4. Superintending Engineer, Swarnrekha Dam Circle, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela-Kharsawan. 5. Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela-Kharsawan. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. V. P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shio Narayan Singh, Advcoate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand No.2, AC to GP-IV ----- Order No.08 Date: 17.07.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the withheld amount with statutory interest, which was deducted at the time of making payment of work done. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the representation pending before them with respect to payment of security amount and extension of time. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that except security amount, all admissible payments including running bills have already been made to the 2025:JHHC:19460 2 petitioner. Since the petitioner delayed the completion of work, the security amount has not been released in his favour. 3. As against this, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents cannot illegally withhold the security amount as the petitioner is not aware that any such order forfeiting his security amount has been passed by the respondents. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that though the security amount with respect to the work in question has not been paid to the petitioner, however no such order forfeiting the same has been brought on record by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to file an application before the respondent no.5 for release of the security amount with respect to the work in question. On receipt of the application, the said respondent after verifying the relevant records and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative shall take an appropriate informed decision in that regard within six weeks from the date of filing of the application. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/