2026:JHHC:5390-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 669 of 2025 M/s Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, through its Executive Director ….. Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through the Director, Industries-cum- Chairman, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ranchi 2. M/s Ranchi Design & Consultancy Service Private Limited, Ranchi, represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Abhay Kumar Choudhary 3. The Jharkhand Education Project Council, through its Project Director, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Animesh Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I ----- 02/24.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the interim order passed on 26.08.2025 declining interim relief to the appellant by way of staying the proceedings for executing an award which was made on 27.05.2022. 3. There is nothing on record to suggest that the award dated 27.05.2022 was challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Assuming that such challenge can be made in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we note that even such a writ petition was filed only in the year 2025 after the award holder was forced to file the proceedings for execution and obtained a certificate under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (as applicable in the State of Jharkhand). Learned 2026:JHHC:5390-DB 2 counsel for the appellant is unable to make any statement whether the appellant was willing to deposit the awarded amount. 4. The above reasons are sufficient for declining the interim relief. 5. In addition, learned Single Judge has noted that prima-facie from the pleadings, there is no dispute about the entitlement of the award holder to receive the awarded amount. The other dispute was between the petitioner and the third respondent regarding liability to pay the awarded amount to the award holder. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the procedure prescribed under the law was not followed by the arbitrator and therefore the so-called award dated 27.05.2022 should not be construed as an award. She submits that since there were several procedural infirmities, the award was liable to be set aside and until consideration of this plea, the interim relief was to be given. 7. There were no answers, or in any event, even prima-facia convincing answers, coming forth why no immediate steps were taken to challenge the award made on 27.05.2022 even on the grounds now alleged by learned counsel for the appellant. Neither any petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the prescribed period nor a writ petition was filed within a reasonable period. 8. In such circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion in not granting any interim relief, we do not think 2026:JHHC:5390-DB 3 that such exercise of discretion is vitiated by any of the acceptable grounds for judicial review. 9. For the above reasons, we dismiss this appeal without any order of costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 24.02.2026 Satish/Vikas/