2026:JHHC:5653-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1867 of 2025 ----- Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd., having registered office at West Morabadi Grounds, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, through one of its Director, Sri Ravindra Bharti, son of Sri Yogendra Prasad Singh, resident of Qr. No.R-25/5, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Jharkhand State Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Ltd., Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 5. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Ltd., Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate For the Res. Nos.4&5: Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate ----- Order No.16 Date: 26.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After this matter was heard for some time, this Court, by its order of 17th December, 2025 had observed that the parties should explore the possibility of an amicable settlement if possible. 3. Pursuant to the above order, the parties/their representatives had several meetings to see if the matter could be amicably resolved. 4. Finally, the parties have succeeded in resolving at least one of the three issues involved in this petition. 2026:JHHC:5653-DB 2 5. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Manager-cum-Executive Engineer of JSBCCL, PIU, Ranchi has filed a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5. To this affidavit, is annexed latest minutes of the meeting dated 19th February, 2026 between the parties/their representatives. 6. The supplementary affidavit states that minutes of the meeting dated 19th February, 2026 contained the concluded terms arrived at between the parties and reflect the consensus reach in furtherance of the direction issued by this Court. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement has indeed been reached in so far as the issue of price variation is concerned. He submits that this can be recorded and the respondents should be directed to make necessary payments to the petitioner based upon the agreement now reached. He further states, on instructions, that on the issue of price variation, the petitioner, upon receipt of payment, will raise no further claim to that effect. He, however, submitted that there are two other issues involved in this petition i.e., regarding refund of GST and labour costs. He submits that the petitioner will once again represent to the respondents regarding these issues and some directions could be issued to the respondents to dispose of such representation within a time bound period. He submitted that should there be no favourable decision, the petitioner, will pursue the matter further to the permissible legal channels. 8. Accordingly, we record that the parties have settled the matter in so far as the price variation issue is concerned. 2026:JHHC:5653-DB 3 9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 states that the amounts due and payable to the petitioner on account of price variation would be paid to the petitioner on or before 25th March, 2026. This statement is accepted. In any event, now that an agreement is reached, we direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to make this payment on or before 25th March, 2026. 10. In so far as the remaining two issues concerning refund of GST and labour costs are concerned, we permit the petitioner to make a representation to the 4th and 5th respondents. If such representation is made, the same should be disposed of in accordance with law by the said respondents within two months of its receipt. All contentions of all parties on merits of these issues are explicitly left open because we have not investigated into the merits or demerits of this matter. 11. If the decision on the representation is not acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner will have the liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. 12. The petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 13. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 26th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 26.02.2026