2025:JHHC:21188 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2131 of 2025 ----- Motive Services, through its Proprietor, namely, Satwik Mishra, S/o Surendra Nath Mishra, resident of Flat No.8/H, Oak Forest, Phase-1, Argora, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, MCH Building, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, MCH Building, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Afsar Raza, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II ----- Order No.04 Date: 31.07.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents particularly respondent no.1 to make payment of Rs.25,52,884/- to the petitioner for execution of work pursuant to work order issued vide letter no.1034 dated 14th March, 2024, which, according to the petitioner, has illegally been withheld. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter no.1034 dated 14th March, 2024 the petitioner was issued work order for supply of lab items such as equipment, books etc. for A.N.M. School, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. Pursuant to the said work order, the petitioner properly supplied the said items and to that effect work completion certificate was also issued by the respondent no.4 vide letter no.1531 dated 22nd April, 2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ 2025:JHHC:21188 2 petition). Despite that, the petitioner has not been paid any amount with respect to the supply made by it. The petitioner repeatedly represented the respondent authorities in this regard, however, the same remained unresponded, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner is required to be factually examined by the competent authority i.e. the respondent no.1. Hence, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.1, an appropriate decision/step will be taken by the said respondent within a timeframe. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation raising the aforesaid claim before the respondent no.1. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.1 after calling for the record and on providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/its representative shall take informed decision within twelve weeks from the date of filing of the representation. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/