2026:JHHC:7114-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1707 of 2026 M/s. S.K. Tekriwal, having its office at Pathargama, P.O. & P.S.- Pathargama, District- Godda, represented through its partner Braj Kishore Tekriwal, son of Late Motilal Tekriwal, resident of Pathargama, P.O. & P.S.- Pathamgarma, District- Godda ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Engineer In-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Circle Dumka, District- Dumka 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division Godda, District- Godda ... … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III ----- Order No. 02 Dated: 16.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By instituting this petition, the petitioner seeks a foreclosure of the works awarded to it under an agreement dated 26.10.2021. The petitioner has pleaded impossibility of performance on account of alleged failure of the State Government to acquire a portion of the land over which the contract was to extend. The petitioner has also sought for writ of mandamus upon the respondents to accept its 27th and final bill and to make payments in terms thereof. 3. In our judgment, these are purely contractual disputes involving no public element as such. Besides, any determination of such issues would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact. 2026:JHHC:7114-DB 2 This is evident from the annexures to the petition where disputes in this regard have already been raised. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that such matters are best agitated by the petitioner before a civil court or if there is any arbitration clause in the agreement, then, by resort to the same. Such disputes cannot be effectively adjudicated by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. At this stage, Mr. Rishu Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has made representations dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure-6) and 19.08.2025 (Annexure-7) and for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied that if some directions are issued to the 2nd respondent for disposal of the same in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, we direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s aforesaid representations in accordance with law and on their own merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event within two months from today. The 2nd respondent must communicate his decision to the petitioner within this period of two months. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the 2nd respondent’s decision on its representations, the petitioner will have liberty to file a civil suit or invoke the arbitration clause, if any, for redressal of its grievances. 7. All contentions of all parties on the merits of the matter are left open because we have not adjudicated the rival contentions on merits. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms and liberty without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 16, 2026 Ritesh/Pawan Uploaded on 17.03.2026