2026:JHHC:18614 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5622 of 2018 M/s Shree Shiddhi Vinayakk Agency, proprietorship firm, having its office at 2nd Floor, Maalaxmi Plaza Complex, Sahajanand Chowk, Harmu, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand- 824002 through its proprietor, namely Krishna Kant Pandey, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Anant Kumar Pandey, resident of 2nd Floor, Maalaxmi Plaza Complex, Sahajanand Chowk, Harmu, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand-824002. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Family Welfare and Medical Education, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Medical & Health Infrastructure Development & Procurement Corporation Ltd.(JMHIDPCL), having its office at MCH Building, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S Namkum, District Ranchi-834010. 3. The Finance Director, Jharkhand Medical & Health Infrastructure Development & Procurement Corporation Ltd. having its office at MCH Building, RCH Campus, Namkum, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S Namkum, District Ranchi-834010. . … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate For the State: Ms. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-1A ------ 06/24.06.2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to forthwith release the admitted dues to the tune of Rs.1,56,27,200/-, as the petitioner has supplied medicines/ drugs as per the work order issued by the respondents pursuant to tender notice. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the tender and subsequent work order, the petitioner had supplied the medicines/ drugs to the State but till date the said amount has not been disbursed to the petitioner. He also submits that it is an admitted fact that the State has received the materials but as the payment has not been made to the petitioner, thus this writ petition has been filed. 4. The State has filed the counter affidavit opposing that the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that there is no previous contract between the petitioner and the State. It is further stated that the medicines/ drugs which were supplied, were not of the standard quality and was not fit to meet the shelf life of the medicine. Nowhere in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the payment should be made to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is an authorized distributor of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. The Jharkhand Medical and Health Infrastructure Development & Procurement Corporation Ltd. (JMHIDPCL) floated a tender for procurement of medicines/ drugs for the Government Health Institutions located in the different districts of the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender (in short NIT), one M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. along with others participated in the tender and M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. was declared successful bidder as L-1. An agreement was entered between M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. and the respondent No.2- JMHIDPCL through its Managing Director sometimes in the month of February, 2017. Respondent No.2 issued supply order in favour of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. The petitioner, who is an authorized distributor of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd., supplied the medicine and drugs to respondent No. 2. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of supply of the materials, the payment has not yet been made to them. 7. The fact that a tender was floated by the respondent No.2 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. participated in the tender and was declared L-1. An agreement was entered into between the respondent No.2 and M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. Admittedly, the work order was issued in favour of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. Admittedly, there is no contract or arrangement between respondent No.2 and this petitioner. Admittedly, this petitioner is the distributor of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. who was allotted the work. M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. has supplied the materials through this petitioner, which is an internal private arrangement between M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. and this petitioner. What was the arrangement between them and what was the term and condition agreed upon by M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. and the petitioner is not known. 8. Since, as per the agreement, the work order has been issued to M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. thus if any money has to be paid in respect of the supply against the work order issued, it would be to M/s Page No. 2 Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd., and not to this petitioner. If this petitioner has supplied any material, pursuant to some private arrangement with M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd., and if any amount falls due, it should be recovered by the petitioner from by M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. and not from the respondent. In absence of any contract between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for any amount from respondent No.2, pursuant to the agreement entered into between M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. and respondent No.2, as the work order was issued in favour of M/s Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no ground to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. 24th June, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp-2. Uploaded on: 07.07.2026 Page No. 3.