( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2408 of 2024 1. M/s Singh Construction, a registered Proprietor Firm with Nagar Vikash and Awash Vibhag, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, represented by its sole proprietor Mukteshwar Kumar Singh, son of Late Satyanarayan Singh having his office and residence near Akhil Memorial School, Sukhdeonagar, Ratu Road, Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834005. 2. Mukteshwar Kumar Singh, son of Late Satyanarayan Singh, Sole Proprietor, having his office and residence near Akhil Memorial School, Sukhdeonagar, Ratu Road, Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-834005. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having his office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, through its Administrator. Jharkhand. 3. The Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having his office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Executive Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having his office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Assistant Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having his office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Junior Engineer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, having his office at Kutchery Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. …. …. Respondents. ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioners : Mr Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr Shwetang Kr Tiwari, Advocate Mr Sanjay Kumar Saw, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Vibhor Mayank, AC to AG ----- 08 /Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners seek the following reliefs by instituting the present petition: - “A. For an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith send to this ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 2 Hon'ble High Court all records appertaining to the issuance of the office order issued vide Memo No. 3055/Eg dated 30.10.2023 under the seal and signature of the respondent no.4, wherein it was ordered that the allotted work and agreement executed by and between the petitioners and the respondents is scrapped/crumbled/ defragmented and the earnest money and security amount deposited by the petitioners to the respondents by way of a fixed deposit is seized and also the petitioners' Firm has been blacklisted for all purposes in the matter of awarding of contract; B. Thereafter, a further prayer is being made before this Hon'ble Court for quashing/ setting aside the said Memo No. 3055/Eg dated 30.10.2023 as being completely illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and a blatant misuse of power as the same has been inflicted upon the petitioners without affording an opportunity to explain his role and without affording the opportunity of principle of natural justice; C. Thereafter a further prayer is being made before this Hon'ble High Court for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith make payment of the amounts to which the petitioners are entitled, in view of the work already executed and completed in pursuance to the work order No. 1286/Eg dated 07.07.2023 and Agreement executed vide Agreement No. 137/ 2023-2024, which has been fully completed by the petitioners; D. A further prayer is being made before this Hon'ble High Court for calling of the records of the second call issued vide Letter No. 142/Eg dated 29.02.2024, wherein at serial no.3 of the same bid for construction of PCC Road at Aryapuri, Main Road, from J.P. School to Ram Pyari Transformer under Ward No. 30 have been called for from the bidders with all details so that the said work may also be completed within 60 days knowing fully well that the said work earlier allotted to the petitioners has already been completed for which the petitioners are entitled for the above amount, which is shown to be 6,83,354/- in the Letter No. 142/Eg ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 3 dated 29.02.2024 to be completely illegal, arbitrary and blatant misuse of power only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioners; E. A further prayer is being made before this Hon'ble High Court for a direction respondents particularly upon the respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 to pay interest to the petitioners along with costs for causing unnecessary harassment and humiliation to the petitioners and forcing them to knock the door of this Hon'ble High Court for the legal entitlement amount to which they are entitled.” 4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits, and supplementary affidavits, and the petitioners have also filed an affidavit in rejoinder. We have perused the averments in the petition along with its accompaniments, as well as the counter affidavits, supplementary affidavits, and the affidavit in rejoinder, along with their accompaniments. 5. Insofar as relief under prayer clause (A) relating to the challenge to the Memo dated 30.10.2023 is concerned, we are satisfied that the challenge to the said memo, by which the petitioners have been blacklisted for an indefinite duration, must succeed. In addition, there may be an issue of violation of natural justice prior to the issuance of the memo dated 30.10.2023. However, instead of going into the issue of violation of natural justice, we propose to base our decision on the premise that the debarment or blacklisting order, as of necessity, must be for a definite duration and cannot be indefinite or indeterminate, as is the position in the present case. 6. In the case of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Western Telecom Project BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph-25, has observed as follows: - ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 4 25. Suffice it to say that “debarment” is recognized and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were allotted. What is notable is that the “debarment” is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractors.” 7. The above suggests that debarment or blacklisting can never be for an indefinite or indeterminate term. The proposition in Kulja Industries Ltd (supra) was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 1 SCC 804, and A.K.G. Construction & Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, [2026 SCC OnLine SC 520] and M/s Mar's Developers & Suppliers v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3327. 8. Therefore, following the reasoning in Kulja Industries Ltd. (supra) and other decisions referred to above, we quash and set aside the impugned memo dated 30.10.2023, blacklisting the petitioners for an indefinite or indeterminate period. As it is, the impugned blacklisting order has continued for almost 3 years. 9. Therefore, in the peculiar facts, and upon considering the charge against the Petitioner, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the Respondents to determine the appropriate period. We therefore quash the impugned memo dated 30.10.2023 and declare that the blacklisting shall no longer be operative. 10. Insofar as the other reliefs are concerned, upon perusing the pleadings filed by both the parties and their accompaniments, we are satisfied that the ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 5 consideration of such reliefs would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact. 11. Mr Tewari, however, submitted that there are no disputed questions of fact and that the respondents, in their affidavits, have admitted the petitioners’ case. 12. Mr Tewari also submitted that, in case of any dispute regarding the quality of construction, a procedure was prescribed for the resolution of such disputes. He submitted that since such procedure was not followed, the respondents cannot now contend that there was any deficiency in the quality of the petitioners’ work involving the construction of a road. 13. Mr Tewari also submitted that the petitioners are petty contractors, and it would be harsh at this stage to relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to claim the amounts illegally forfeited by the respondents and the amounts due and payable to the petitioners. 14. Accordingly, Mr Tewari submitted that even the remaining reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in this petition should be granted by us by exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. Mr Vibhor Mayank, learned A.C to A.G who appears on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) submitted that the respondents had, in their counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit, given details of the deficiencies in the work undertaken by the petitioners. He submitted that, in fact, there was a hue and cry raised by members of the public regarding the quality of the road construction, due to which the ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 6 authorities had to intervene. On intervention, they found merit in the complaints that the construction was of deficient quality. 16. Mr Vibhor Mayank submitted that a direction was issued to the petitioners to stop the work and rectify the defects before proceeding further. However, the petitioners refused to comply. He referred to certain memos annexed along with the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that there was no breach of the procedure prescribed for determining construction quality. He submitted that the action taken by the respondents was quite consistent with the contractual provisions. 17. Finally, Mr Vibhor Mayank submitted that this was a purely contractual dispute involving disputed questions of fact. He submitted that this court should therefore not grant the petitioners the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 18. On consideration of the rival contentions relating to the reliefs other than the relief concerning the issue of blacklisting, we are satisfied that the grant or refusal of such reliefs would involve adjudication into the seriously disputed questions of fact. Further, we cannot accept Mr Tewari’s contention that in this case, there are no disputed questions of fact involved or that the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents in fact admit the petitioners’ case or the pleadings in the petition. 19. For example, if we refer to the counter affidavit filed by Mr Suraj Prakash Singh Choudhary, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner on 12.02.2025, the dispute or the involvement of the disputed questions of fact is quite evident. ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 7 20. We therefore transcribe the averments in paragraphs 9 to 16 of this affidavit filed on 12.02.2025 for the convenience of reference. “9. That it is stated and submitted that after the allocation of work, an agreement was executed by the contractor on 07.07.2023. As per the agreement the contractor agreed to complete the work in only Rs 6,83,354.00 and the work was to be completed in 60 days i.e. the date of completion of the work was 04.09.2023. That it is further stated and submitted that Work order was issued by letter no. 1286/Eng dated 07.07.2023. 10. That it is stated and submitted that on 27.08.2023 (Sunday) the contractor started the work without informing the engineers of the corporation, in which the thickness of the road was kept only 3" to 3.5" instead of 6". This was opposed by the local people. On receiving the information, the junior engineer and enforcement team of the corporation went to the site and found the complaint of the public to be true. It is further stated and submitted that during the inspection, it was found that not only the thickness of the road was less but its quality was also not satisfactory. Shuttering was also not being used. 11. That it is stated and that News to this effect was also published in the daily newspaper on 28.08.2023. The report submitted by was also the concerned junior engineer / assistant engineer. 12. That it is stated and submitted RMC vide letter no. 2194/Abhi dated 28.08.2023 ordered the contractor to repair the earlier faulty work as per quality and standards, but he neither started the work nor improved it. Which is a clear violation of the office order. 13. That it is stated and submitted that thereafter, vide letter no. 2429/Adv. dated 11.09.2023 of the RMC, the contractor was again directed to repair the earlier faulty work by demolishing it. 14. That it is stated and submitted that even after the above instructions, the contractor did not correct the faulty work done by him and started further work in a disorderly manner. Despite repeated warnings the writ petitioner did not execute the work as per agreement. 15. That it is stated and submitted that due to the contractor's repeated violation and disregard of rules and office correspondence and poor quality of work, Contractor was blacklisted by the Corporation's letter no. 3055/Eng dated 30.10.2023 and the advance amount deposited by him was confiscated. ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 8 16. That it is further stated and submitted that the above mentioned faulty work has not been rectified by the contractor. It remains as it is. Therefore, the contractor is not entitled to receive any payment for the said faulty work.” 21. Similarly, if we refer to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Mr Sanjeev Kumar, Executive Engineer, on 02.09.2025, the disputes are again evident. Accordingly, we transcribe the contents of paragraphs 4 to 8 of this supplementary counter affidavit for the convenience of reference. “4. That it is humbly stated and submitted that on 27.08.2023 (Sunday) the contractor started the work arbitrarily without informing the engineers of the corporation, on receiving the information, the junior engineer of the corporation went to the site and inspected the work site and found that the work being done by the contractor was not as per the specification. The junior engineer immediately instructed to the contractor to stop the work as while carrying out the work, shuttering was not used by the contractor and thickness was also not maintained, due and to which the quality of the work was affected. Junior engineer entered his report in the note sheet and submitted the file before Assistant engineer for information and further action. 5. That it is stated and submitted that a joint report dated 11-09- 2023 was also prepared with the signature of Executive Engineer RMC, Assistant Engineer RMC & Junior Engineer RMC. Wherein it is mentioned that: On 27.08.2023, after a dispute at the site, during the inspection of the PC road, it was found that the work was being done by the contractor without informing and on checking at many places, it was found that the thickness of the casting was 3" to 3.5" which was much less than the required thickness of 6" as per the agreement conditions. It is noteworthy that on 28.08.2023, through letter no. 2194/Eng the contractor was directed to break the work done earlier and work again as per the specifications of the agreement, but the time period given as per the agreement has expired on 04.09.2023, but no work is being done by the contractor on the site till now. After which, the final notice for improvement of work on the site has been given to the contractor through letter no. 2194/Eng dated 11/09/2023. 6. That it is stated and submitted that RMC vide letter no. 2194/ Eng. dated 28.08.2023 [Annexure-A] ordered the contractor to repair the earlier faulty work as per quality and standards, but he neither started the work nor improved it, which is a clear violation of the office order. ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 9 7. That it is stated and submitted that thereafter, vide letter no. 2429/Eng.. dated 11.09.2023 [Annexure -B) of the RMC, the contractor was again directed to repair the earlier faulty work by demolishing it. 8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that Photo copy of the relevant part of the dispatch register "pertaining to dispatch/service of Annexure-A dated 28.08.2023 and Annexure-B dated 11.09.2023" containing consignment number and receipt given by the concerned person of the postal Dept is being annexed herewith.” 22. Considering the above counter affidavits and the supplementary counter affidavits, we cannot agree with Mr Tewari’s contention that the respondents have admitted the petitioners’ case or that there are no disputed questions of fact involved in the present matter. 23. Petitioners have no doubt filed a rejoinder in which they have sought to counter the statements in the counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits. This, in fact, establishes that there are seriously disputed questions of fact in this petition. Such seriously disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of our extraordinary but summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 24. This is a case of pure and simple contractual dispute. No case of manifest arbitrariness or manifest unfairness could be said to have been made out. This is a case of usual dispute between the employer and the contractor. While exercising our extraordinary but summary jurisdiction, it would not be possible to adjudicate such disputes and delve into disputed questions such as the thickness of the road coating or other issues relating to the quality of the road, etc. 25. Therefore, while we quash the impugned Memo dated 30.10.2023 blacklisting the petitioners, we are satisfied that it would not be appropriate ( 2026:JHHC:19118-DB ) 10 for us to adjudicate seriously disputed questions of fact in the context of the remaining reliefs prayed for in this petition. 26. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to agitate such grievances by initiating an appropriate action before the appropriate authority. All contentions of all parties regarding such reliefs, i.e. reliefs other than those concerning the issue of blacklisting, are left open. Nothing contained in this judgment and order should even remotely affect the decision on such other issues. 27. Rule is made partly absolute by quashing the impugned Memo dated 30.10.2023 blacklisting the petitioners and liberty is granted to the petitioners to take out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for redressal of the petitioners’ remaining grievances. All contentions of all parties regarding the remaining grievances are left explicitly open. 28. The petition is partly allowed to the above extent without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 30, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 02.07.2026