2026:JHHC:16376-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6801 of 2017 M/s Sudhir Manufacturing Company, through its proprietor, Nirmala Devi, W/o Late Sudhir Prasad, R/o D’Costa Road, Jugsalai, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Ranchi 4. Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents: Ms. Laxmi Murmu, G.P.-I Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P.-I ----- 10/08.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 01.08.2017 by which its agreement with the respondents came to be rescinded. 3. On perusal of the impugned order as also the counter affidavits, it appears that the petitioner, after completing a portion of the work in question, refused to complete the balance work. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to complete the balance work, failing which the petitioner was informed that a fresh tender would be issued for getting such work completed through some other agency. In the above circumstances, it would not be possible for us to deal with the disputed questions that arise in this matter by exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This prima-facie, does not appear to be any case of breach of natural justice or unfairness. 4. Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra now contends that the petitioner has completed 92% work. He therefore submits that 92% of the 2026:JHHC:16376-DB 2 agreed amount of Rs.2,73,88,905/- should have been paid to the petitioner. He submits that an amount of only Rs.2,16,96,034/- has been paid to the petitioner, leaving a balance of approximately Rs.35,00,000/- which has not been paid to the petitioner till date. 5. Again, we cannot prima-facie accept the petitioner’s aforesaid contention. 6. The impugned order as well as the pleadings suggest that the balance work had to be tendered because the petitioner refused to execute the same. Such tenders are usually at the risk and consequences of the original tender. Investigation into all these aspects would involve adjudication of seriously disputed questions of fact. 7. The petitioner is virtually insisting upon performance of an agreement by the respondents or in any case, seeking mandatory amount on the premise that the agreement was complied with at least in part. This is a case of statutory contract. This is also a case which would involve adjudication of seriously disputed questions of fact. 8. For the above reasons, we decline to entertain this writ petition. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to explore the alternate remedies by way of a suit or invoking any arbitration clause in accordance with law. 9. We clarify that prima-facie observations made in this order need not influence any Court or authority, if the petitioner invokes the alternate remedies. 10. At the same time, we clarify that all contentions of the parties are left open since we have declined to entertain this writ petition. 2026:JHHC:16376-DB 3 11. We further note that this writ petition was instituted on 23.11.2017 and remained pending till date since the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the same. 12. With the above observations and liberty, we dispose of this writ petition without any order for costs. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 08.06.2026 Satish/Vikas/