Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 3208 of 2026 (with I.A. No. 7483 of 2026) M/s Arvind Construction, represented through its proprietor Arvind Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Ghanshyam Lal Gupta, resident of 1A, VIP Apartment, Dimna Main Road, Opposite Vishal Megamart, P.O.- Mango, P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Chief-Engineer, officiating at Swarnrekha Bhawan Adityapur, P.O- Adityapur, P.S- Adityapur, Dist-Saraikella-Kharsawan Jharkhand. 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution No.-03, officiating at Mango, P.O- Mango, P.S- Mango, Dist- East-Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Ram Nivas Prasad, aged not known, S/o not known, Chief- Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur Jamshedpur, Swarnrekha Bhawan Adityapur, P.O- Adityapur, P.S-Adityapur, Dist- Saraikella- Kharsawan. ………. Respondents AND W.P. (T) No. 3133 of 2026 (with I.A. No. 7482 of 2026) M/s Arvind Construction, represented through its proprietor Arvind Kumar Gupta, aged about 47 years, son of Shri Ghanshyam Lal Gupta, resident of 1A, VIP Apartment, Dimna Main Road, Opposite Vishal Megamart, P.O.- Mango, P.S.-Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Development Department, officiating at Nepal House, P.O.:- Doranda, P.S.:- Doranda, Dist:-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Chief-Engineer, officiating at Swarnrekha Bhawan Adityapur, P.O- Adityapur, P.S- Adityapur, Dist-Saraikella- Kharsawan Jharkhand. 5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution No.-03, officiating at Mango, P.O- Mango, P.S- Mango, Dist- East-Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioners: Mr Varun Praphakar, Advocate (in both cases) For the State: Mr Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. (in both cases) --------- 04/Dated: 24.06.2026 1. Heard Mr Varun Praphakar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr Vibhor Mayank, the learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the respondents-State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners craves leave to withdraw the petitions. 3. We grant the petitioners leave and dispose of both the writ petitions and the Interlocutory Applications therein. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB 4. However, though we have disposed of the writ petitions, we note what we have observed in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of our order dated 12.05.2026 :- “5. However, we direct that the affidavit should be filed by the Secretary (Water Resources Development Department) without delegating this task to any other officer. Assuming that the affidavit will refer to the alleged mistake in issuing the NIT in the wrong format, the affidavit must, in clear terms, explain who was responsible for such mistake. 6. The above explanation is necessary to be furnished in the Secretary's affidavit because issuing tenders and publishing them in newspapers costs the tax-payer a lot of money. Besides, in this case, we noted that the reason for cancellation of the tender was also not readily supplied to the petitioner or other tenderers, thereby forcing them to approach the Court, for which again, the petitioner must have incurred expenses. The mistake, is a cause for utilizing valuable judicial time. Therefore, the Secretary, must, in the affidavit, disclose clearly the officer/officers responsible for the alleged mistake and state whether any steps would be taken to recover the loss caused to the State exchequer on account of such mistake. The affidavit must also indicate whether there is any proposal to fix responsibility on such officers and make suitable entries in their confidential rolls. 7. The Secretary, must file the affidavit before 12th June, 2026 without seeking any further extensions.” Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB 5. In our order, we had directed the Secretary to enquire into the matter. Still, we are surprised that the Secretary delegated this duty to a committee that has now prepared a report that commits nothing and was perhaps constituted only to frustrate or delay the faithful compliance with the Court’s directions. 6. Even the Secretary, in his affidavit filed before us on 22nd of June 2026, has rightly found the report unsustainable. The affidavit states that a committee was constituted, comprising the Executive Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer, to determine which Officer/Officers were responsible for the mistaken publication of the tender in the correct form. We had also directed the Secretary to file an affidavit on whether there is any proposal to fix responsibility on such officer/officers and make suitable entries in their confidential rolls. 7. The Committee, we are sorry to say, has only filed a report stating that there was a mistake in the publication of the Tender Notice. This was well known. This was, in fact, the State’s contention. Therefore, we wonder why such a committee was necessary to determine the obvious. The committee, constituted by the Secretary, either to delay the matter or to evade responsibility, was clearly required to ascertain which Officer/Officers were responsible for the alleged mistake. The Secretary was directed to inform the Court whether any steps would be taken to recover the loss caused to the State exchequer on account of such mistake from Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB such Officer/Officers, and further, whether there would be any proposal to make suitable entries in their confidential rolls. 8. From the report filed before us, we are sorry to say that we get the impression that this Committee, comprising the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, and Chief Engineer, appears to be only interested in protecting the fellow Officer/Officers responsible for the mistake. 9. The Secretary, we are surprised, has again remanded the matter to this very Committee, which has clearly evinced an interest in not determining which persons were responsible for the mistake. It is rather difficult to accept that this Court’s order or the Secretary’s order lacked any clarity. The committee’s mandate was quite clear. They are senior officials holding responsible positions. Therefore, on their own, they should have determined where the fault lay and recovered the loss caused to the State exchequer from the errant officials. 10. The Secretary and the Committee official must always remember that they are dealing with public funds. They are the trustees of the public funds collected from taxpayers in this country. Therefore, if, on account of a gross mistake, the State Exchequer is put to a loss, there is a duty to at least enquire into such mistakes, determine which Officer/Officers are responsible for them, and, if necessary, recover the amount from the responsible officers. There is also a duty to make an entry in the confidential rolls of the responsible Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB Officer/Officers so that a sense of responsibility is instilled and they improve in future. Protecting errant officials at any cost is not as important as protecting the State’s interests or the public interest. 11. The Executive Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer have indulged in an exercise to cover up the truth by pretending that they did not understand the Court’s order or that they did not understand the order by which they were constituted and under which they were required to function. The entire idea seems to be to create a bureaucratic logjam so that the Court’s orders are, if possible, frustrated or at least not complied with in letter and spirit. Since even the Secretary has not bothered to deprecate all this but merely remanded this matter to the very same committee, we deprecate this attitude of all concerned. 12. The Secretary is now directed to himself enquire into the matter up by 08.07.2026 and determine which Officer/Officers are responsible for the mistake. The Secretary may take the assistance of the Committee. However, if the Secretary receives no assistance from the members of the Committee, we will have to consider whether the mistake should be attributed to the Secretary himself, and whether the members of the Committee and the amounts spent on issuing such a mistaken advertisement should be recovered from them. Once a mistake is apparent and admitted, we refuse to accept that the persons who committed it cannot be identified. In Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18473-DB fact, such determination must be a matter of record. Any attempt to protect errant officials is a serious matter, and those found to extend such protection must also be held accountable. 13. The Secretary should also consider whether any members of the committee were themselves responsible for the mistake and have, therefore, filed such a report without any application of mind. 14. At one stage, we were considering placing this order in the confidential records of the Secretary and the committee members. However, at least one opportunity is due to the officials to make serious amends. 15. Although we are disposing of these petitions, we direct the Secretary to file a compliance affidavit in this Court by 10.07.2026, without seeking any extension. Now that there is [in fact, there never was] a dispute about the publication of an incorrect notice causing loss to the State exchequer, the names of those responsible for this mistake must be disclosed, and action for recovery must be initiated. 16. List the matter for orders/compliance on the 13th of July 2026. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 24, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 29.06.2026