Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18161-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 560 of 2019 M/s Suryamangalam-RN Singh (JV), a joint venture Firm, having its Office situated at Plot No.B1, City Centre, Sector-4, P.O. Sector-4, P.S. Sector-4, District Bokaro Steel City-827004, through its Authorised Signatory Anish V. Unnithan, Aged about 35 years, Son of Dr. K.V. Unnithan, Qrs. No. 2217, Sector-4A, P.O. Sector 4, P.S. Sector-4, District Bokaro Steel City-827 004. ... PETITIONER Versus 1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited, a Subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Head Office at Darbhanga House, P.O. Kutchery, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Chief Managing Director. 2. The General Manager, Dhori Area, M/s Central Coalfields Limited having its Office at Office of the General Manager, Dhori Area, P.O. Dhori, P.S.-Sector-4, District – Bokaro - 825102. 3. Area Finance Manager, Dhori Area, M/s Central Coalfields Limited having its Office at Office of the General Manager, Dhori Area, P.O. Dhori, P.S.-Sector-4, District – Bokaro - 825102. 4. Staff Officer, Dhori Area, M/s Central Coalfields Limited having its Office at Office of the General Manager, Dhori Area, P.O. Dhori, P.S.-Sector-4, District – Bokaro - 825102. 5. M/s Manikraj Construction (P) Ltd., having its Office at New Road, P.O. Phusro Bazar, P.O. Phusro, P.S. Phusro, District Bokaro, through its Director. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1-4: Mr Manish Kumar, A.C. to Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 22.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18161-DB 2. Mr Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s grievance now would be restricted to the forfeiture of the EMD amount. 3. In the main petition, there was no challenge to this forfeiture of EMD amount. Mr Sinha states that there was no challenge because the petitioner was questioning the rejection of his technical bid and further, there was no order communicating the forfeiture of the EMD to the petitioner. 4. We note that the respondents in their counter affidavit filed on 16th of September 2025, inter alia at paragraph 25 has stated as follows:- “25. That in reply to statements made in para 20 of the writ application the respondents state that the EMD of the petitioner has been forfeited as per N I T clause 15 (A)(ix). Forfeiture is automatic as is evident from the relevant Clause at page 44 of the writ application. The Petitioner should have been extremely careful in submitting its bid and uploading the documents relating to Experience, Power of Attorney etc. His lapses have resulted in forfeiture of EMD Deposit which automatically triggers on being found to be technically and commercially unacceptable.” Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18161-DB 5. Since it is the case of the respondents that the forfeiture of EMD is automatic, there may not have been any communication of the order of forfeiture to the petitioner. 6. However, now that there is communication through this counter affidavit, Mr Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the forfeiture on all grounds that may be available to the petitioner including that there can never be any automatic forfeiture. 7. Considering the above circumstances and the fact that the counter affidavit was filed only on 16th of September 2025, we grant leave to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition grant the petitioner leave to withdraw this petition with liberty as prayed. 8. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, we clarify that all contentions of all parties on merits are left open. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 22, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 24.06.2026