( 2026:JHHC:18901-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 3860 of 2026 PRL-SMASL-CISC (JV), a Joint Venture entity, having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bariatu Road, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, through its Authorized Signatory namely Mr. Raj Kumar Agarwal, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Ramswaroop Agarwal, Resident of D-302, Hariom Tower Residential Complex, Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834001. 2. General Manager (Contract Management Cell), Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi Jharkhand, PIN 834001. 3. Chief General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Piparwar Area, P.O. and P.S. Bachra, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN 829201. 4. General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Piparwar Area, P.O. and P.S. Bachra, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN 829201. 5. Additional General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Piparwar Area, P.O. and P.S. Bachra, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN 829201. 6. Assistant General Manager, Piparwar Area, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Piparwar Area, P.O. and P.S. Bachra, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN 829201. 7. Project Officer, Ashok Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office at Piparwar Area, P.O. and P.S. Bachra, District Chatra, Jharkhand, PIN 829201. 8. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi, having its office at Central Revenue Building, 5A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN 834001. … …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate Mr Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the CGST : Mr Anurag Vijay, Sr. S.C ----- 03 /Dated: 29.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance projected in this petition was that the respondents had not taken a decision pursuant to this Court’s order dated 27th of April 2022 ( 2026:JHHC:18901-DB ) 2 disposing of W.P.(T) No. 4710 of 2021, despite the expiry of the six-week period specified therein. 3. This Court, by order dated 27th of April 2022, had issued the following directions: - “6. On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction upon the competent authority to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner through the respondent no.4 General Manager, CCL, Piparwar Area, Chatra duly supported by all documents, agreement, work order and evidence of discharge of service tax liability by the petitioner towards payment of enhanced rate of mid wage payments. Let such decision be taken within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision so taken, he may invoke the remedy as is available in law.” 4. The six-week period expired on or about 07.06.2022. The Petitioner did not address a single letter to the respondents, reminding them that a decision remained to be taken or that, if a decision was taken, it was not communicated to the petitioner. This is a little curious and not the normal conduct of a Petitioner who now claims that lakhs of rupees are at stake. 5. This petition was filed on 04.05.2026, almost four years after the expiry of the period specified in the order dated 27.04.2022. Just before filing this petition, the petitioner, by its application dated 3rd March 2026, sought information on compliance with this Court's direction dated 27.04.2022, invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. We believe this was to lay the groundwork for filing this petition. 6. Based on the reply of the Staff Officer (Mining) stating that the said Staff Officer (Mining) has no records, this petition has been filed by making a ( 2026:JHHC:18901-DB ) 3 bold statement that no decision was taken pursuant to this Court's direction dated 27.04.2022 within the requisite period of six weeks. 7. Significantly, the Staff Officer (Mining) was never a party in W.P.(T) No. 4710 of 2021. Therefore, he was not expected to have any records. The direction in our order dated 27.04.2022 was to the General Manager, CCL, i.e. 4th respondent in the first writ petition, to decide the matter or communicate the decision, if already made. 8. Besides, normally, if there is non-compliance, a contempt petition is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. No such contempt petition was also filed in this matter. Instead, the present petition has been filed after four years on the premise that no decision was taken or communicated within the prescribed period of six weeks, and therefore a direction should once again be issued to the 4th respondent to take a decision in the matter. 9. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed, on oath, stating that, in terms of this Court's direction dated 27.04.2022, not only was a decision taken on 07.07.2022, but it was also communicated to the petitioner. The copy of the decision dated 07.07.2022 is placed on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit and the same bears signatures of receipt. 10. Possibly, this explains why, for almost four years, the petitioner did not write to the General Manager complaining about non-compliance with the direction issued by this Court or why the petitioner did not dare to file any contempt petition against the respondents. This also explains why the petitioner chose to follow the RTI route to lay a groundwork for filing this belated petition. 11. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have stated that this petition has been filed with the oblique motive of reviving an old and time-barred ( 2026:JHHC:18901-DB ) 4 claim. At least prima facie, we find justification in what is now urged before us. The circumstances referred to above are too suspicious and have not been adequately explained. 12. We too get the impression that the motive behind instituting this belated petition was perhaps to secure an order from this Court directing the respondents to decide the matter by accepting the petitioner's contention that there was no decision, or, in any event, if any decision were to be produced, to claim that the petitioner has knowledge of such decision for the first time in these proceedings and, based thereupon, to overcome the bar of limitation to challenge such decision. 13. Predictably, the petitioner now denies any nexus with the signatures appearing on the communication dated 07.07.2022. Based on this denial, the petitioner contends that the petitioner has never received the decision dated 07.07.2022. As if this were not sufficient, Mr Pasari argues that the communication dated 07.07.2022 is not a decision at all, but only a show cause notice. 14. The first contention is prima facie suspicious, but the second contention is ex facie misconceived. From the perusal of the communication dated 07.07.2022, it is clear that for the several reasons stated therein, the respondents have stated that the petitioner's claim is “inadmissible”. This is followed by a statement that the petitioner should show cause as to why the respondents should pay the claimed amount to the petitioner. Due to this last sentence, it cannot be said that the communication dated 07.07.2022 is not a decision at all, but rather a show cause notice. 15. The issue of whether the signatures on the communication dated 07.07.2022 are those of any employees or of the inward or outward clerks of ( 2026:JHHC:18901-DB ) 5 the petitioner cannot be decided in a writ petition. However, our prima facie observations, based on suspicious surrounding circumstances such as the absence of any reminder/letter for an unprecedented period of four years, the non-filing of any contempt petition within the limitation period, or the belated seeking of information from an authority unconcerned with the matter, lend credence to Mr Das’s contention that this Petition is filed with the oblique motive of overcoming the limitation period to challenge the decision dated 07.07.2022, or of creating grounds for seeking condonation of delay to challenge the said communication. The parties like the Petitioner cannot be encouraged to invoke this Court’s extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction for such purposes. 16. We dismiss this petition, but in the fond hope that this will not be repeated, we refrain from imposing any costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 29, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 01.07.2026