2026:JHHC:17643 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) 6535 OF 2018 ….. M/s Vrindavan Construction, having its office at Devi Mandap Road, Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, P.O.-Hehal, Ranchi, through one of its partner Lal Bivhay Nath Shahdeo aged about 48 years , s/o Late Prayag Nath Shah Deo, R/o Vrindavan House, Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi. ….Petitioner -versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. Chief Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Lohardaga, Government of Jharkhand P.O. & P.S. Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga. …Respondents …… CORUM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II CAV On: 02/04/2026 Pronounced on:15 /06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:  For issuance of appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 21.6.2018, passed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Lohardaga, whereby and whereunder the agreement no. F2/83/2010-11 dated 5.7.2011, for the ‘construction of residual work of community health centre under Kuru block’ with the petitioner has been cancelled and the security money deposited by the petitioner has been forfeited by the respondent authorities, in spite of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court on 19.6.2018, in WPC No. 1266 of 2018, where, while disposing of the writ petition, the Hon'ble Court, directed the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Lohardaga, to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 12.2.2016 for the 2026:JHHC:17643 2 foreclosure of the contract, release of the earnest money deposit/security and for the payment of the admitted dues, if any, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt/production of a copy of the order.  Pass such order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that a notice inviting tender having NIT No. 20/2010-11 was published inviting bids from eligible and approved tender for the ‘construction of residual work of Community Health Centre at Kuru block’. The petitioner submitted its bid and was declared successful vide letter No. 877 dated 8.6.2011. Upon acceptance of the bid, the petitioner was allotted the work by the respondent. An agreement to this effect was executed on 5.7.2011, and on the same date, a work order was also issued in favour of the petitioner. The total contract value was ₹2,16,66,000/- while the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was ₹11,34,000/-. 4. It has been further submitted that the dispute between the parties arose when the petitioner came to know that the work being done by it was not technically approved by the department, and accordingly, the petitioner, vide letter dated 16.11.2011, requested the respondent to provide the sanctioned map and the detailed project report in order to enable it to execute the work as per the required specification. Upon receiving no response, another letter dated 27.12.2011 was sent to the respondent with the same request. 5. However, instead of providing the sanction map and the detailed project report, the respondent gave an oral assurance to the petitioner to 2026:JHHC:17643 3 start the work at the earliest as per the estimate prepared and the bill of quantity as mentioned in the agreement. However, sans the sanctioned plan, the petitioner found it difficult to lay the electric pipe and sanitary equipment and, as such requested the respondent to provide the same on 13.3.2013. A further reminder was also sent on 17.5.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that masonry work was completed by the petitioner. However, thereafter, the laying of sanitary equipment and electric pipe, which was to be done prior to plastering of the walls, could not be done without the sanctioned map. Despite several letters, the same was not provided to the petitioner. 7. Apart from the letters mentioned in the above paragraphs, the petitioner seems to have written further letters on 8.6.2013, 4.7.2013, 25.9.2013, 2.1.2014 and 13.2.2014. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, due to the aforesaid reasons, the work completely stopped, and the petitioner on 2.3.2015 and 3.8.2015 informed the respondents about the status of the work. The petitioner also has categorically stated its inability to execute the work without the map. The petitioner has further stated that the material cost and labour cost have increased manifold, and as such, a revised estimate may be prepared for the remaining work. The petitioner requested that the map be provided so that the work could be completed within a period of six months. 9. The respondent, in response to the letter dated 3.8.2015, finally provided the map as well as the detailed project report for laying the 2026:JHHC:17643 4 electric wiring and directed the petitioner to execute the work as per the plan. However, the plea of the respondents pertaining to the revision of cost remains unanswered. The petitioner was again given a verbal assurance by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Lohardaga, that the same would be discussed by the higher officials. Until such time, the petitioner was asked to continue with the work. 10. However, the petitioner was unable to execute the work at the original cost. It is the contention of the petitioner that the security money/earnest money, which was a significant sum, ought to have been refunded, as the petitioner was unable to complete the work within the stipulated time owing to the fault of the respondent to provide it with a sanctioned map and the detailed project report. The petitioner visited the respondent several times, but there was no response with respect to the division of the estimated cost. When the petitioner lost all hope, it, by letter dated 12.2.2016, requested the respondent to foreclose the contract and refund its security/earnest money. 11. When the petitioner did not receive any response, it knocked the door of this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP(C) No. 1266 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.6.2018, directing the Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Lohardaga, to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law on the representation dated 12.2.2016. 2026:JHHC:17643 5 12. It is the contention of the petitioner that, despite a specific order dated 19.6.20218, passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1266 of 2018, the respondent authority on 21.6.2018 passed an order annulling the contract and withholding the security deposit of the petitioner in the most arbitrary fashion. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent is not only arbitrary but also contemptuous. He further submits that the aforesaid facts show that the concerned respondent failed in its obligation to provide the sanctioned map and the detailed project report to the petitioner. The sanction map and the detailed project report were provided to the petitioner only after a lapse of almost five years. As such, it is apparent that the project could not be successfully completed owing to fundamental breaches and lapses on the part of the respondent. 14. It was further contended that the respondent, instead of acting in a fair manner and refunding the security/earnest money, chose to act with utter high-handedness and cancelled the contract while withholding the security/earnest money of the petitioner. This action on the part of the respondent is not only arbitrary but also violates the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid action was taken against the petitioner in order to hide their own latches. 15. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the respondents submits that, as the work was not completed by the petitioner within the stipulated time, it was 2026:JHHC:17643 6 well within its right to withhold and forfeit the earnest money/security deposit. 16. Having gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the Ld. counsel for the parties, this Court deems it fit to mention that on 26.3.2026, this Court gave an opportunity to the respondent to verify the records of this case. 17. Such verification was imperative considering that the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have not replied to the averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 of the writ petitions. 18. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has, in categorical words, stated that the petitioner was not provided with the sanctioned map as well as the detailed project report and proceeded with the work on the oral assurance given by the Executive Engineer. The same has been replied to in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter affidavits, wherein it has been stated that the averments made in the paragraphs are "matter of fact, which require no further comment”. 19. Similarly, in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the sanctioned map was provided to the petitioner only on 26.08.2015, i.e., after a lapse of almost five years since the parties entered into a contract, i.e., on 05.07.2011. In reply to the averment made in paragraph 15, the respondent in paragraph 13 of its counter affidavit has not denied the same but has merely deflected by stating that the “same has been replied to in the above paragraphs of the present affidavit”. 2026:JHHC:17643 7 20. After due verification, the Ld. counsel for the respondents on 24- 02-2026 has stated that he cannot controvert the fact that the map was supplied to the petitioner only on 26.08.2015. 21. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court frames the following issues for the purpose of adjudication of the instant lis:  Whether this court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may adjudicate contractual disputes?  Whether, in light of the governing facts, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 22. So far as the first issue is concerned; this court is conscious of the fact that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it should refrain from adjudicating contractual disputes between parties. This restraint is because contractual disputes generally involve adjudication of complicated and hotly contested questions of fact as well as interpreting the terms of the contract. However, when a dispute does not require the courts to delve into questions of fact or interpret the terms of the contract and the matter pertains to admitted dues, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can very well be entertained. Reference is made to the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors (2008) 5 SCC 632, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the restraint of adjudicating disputes pertaining to contractual issues under Article 226 of the Constitution is essentially self-imposed; there is no restriction to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in cases of admitted dues. 2026:JHHC:17643 8 23. In the case at hand, the respondents have not disputed the fact despite being given several opportunities that it did not provide the sanctioned map as well as the detailed project report to the petitioner within the stipulated time. As these requirements were essential for successful completion of the contract and were provided to the petitioner only after a lapse of more than five years from the date of the agreement, the petitioner could not complete the contract within the stipulated period. 24. In light thereof, this court is having no hesitation in holding that the instant writ petition is maintainable and can be entertained by this Court. 25. Now, coming to the second issue, the facts of this case categorically show that despite several representations made by the petitioner, it was not provided with the sanctioned map and the detailed project report. The petitioner, acting on oral assurances given by the respondent, completed the masonry work. However, could not proceed further due to the absence or lack of the sanctioned map. This sanctioned map was provided to the petitioner only on 26.8.2015, i.e., after a lapse of almost 5 years of the agreement, which was signed between the parties on 5.7.2011. 26. It is also a fact that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 1266 of 2018, wherein this Court on 19.6.2018, directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order with respect to the grievances raised by the petitioner. However, instead of adhering to the order passed by this court, the respondent chose to annul the agreement dated 05.07.2011 on 21.6.2018 and forfeit the security/earnest money of 2026:JHHC:17643 9 the petitioner. This action, in the considered view of this court, amounts to a display of high-handedness on the part of the respondent. 27. Further, on perusal of the order dated 19.6.2018, it is evident that the respondents have not considered the admitted fact that the sanctioned map was provided to the petitioner only on 26.8.2015 and has annulled the contract on the ground that the work could not be completed by 4.7.2012. 28. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Rajesh Gupta (2010) 1 SCC 655, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that an instrumentality of the State (such as the respondent) is required to act in a fair and transparent manner. 29. In the case at hand, the concerned respondents, despite an opportunity given by this court, was not able to bring on record any cogent material or evidence to show that it had handed over the sanctioned map to the petitioner or provided any detail which could assist the petitioner in completing the work within the stipulated time. In fact, the counter- affidavit discloses that the respondents continued to be apathetic to the plight of the petitioner and did not give any response to several representations made by it. 30. The respondents have not disputed the specific averments made by the petitioner in its writ petition that sans the sanctioned plan, it could not have proceeded beyond the masonry work. 31. On perusal of the order dated 19.6.2018, it is evident that the respondent has not considered the admitted fact that the sanctioned map 2026:JHHC:17643 10 was provided to the petitioner only on 26.8.2015 and has annulled the contract on the ground that the work could not be completed by 4.7.2012. 32. In absence of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner could in no possible scenario execute the agreement within the stipulated time. It is a fit case to apply the principle of Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (law cannot call upon anybody to do something which is impossible). 33. Considering the above, this court is having no hesitation in holding that the contention of the respondents that the work was annulled on the ground that it was not completed within the stipulated time of one year, is completely unreasonable, arbitrary and devoid of any merit and therefore requires to be set aside. 34. Consecutively, the action of the respondents to forfeit the security/earnest money and not pay the admitted dues, if any, of the petitioner is also bad in the eye of the law. 35. In light thereof, the instant writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The security money and/or earnest money shall be refunded to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above amount, from 21.6.2018 till the day of disbursement to the petitioner. (b) If the petitioner has any other claim apart from security/earnest money; liberty is granted to it to file such a claim before the respondents along with supporting documents, within the aforesaid stipulated period. 2026:JHHC:17643 11 (c) The concerned respondent is directed to consider such a claim and pass a reasoned order within two weeks thereafter. It goes without saying that if the respondents find that any amount is payable to the petitioner; the same shall be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of such reasoned order. 36. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of. Though it is a fit case for imposing cost, however, this court in its discretion refrains from doing so. (Deepak Roshan, J) Dated:15 /06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 19.06.2026