2026:JHHC:24648 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3562 of 2022 Krishna Kumar Mishra, son of late Paras Nath Mishra, resident of A/40, Shakti Bhawan, Balajee Road, Bagun agar, P.O Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. .... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Housing Department, at Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jharkhand. 3. The Special Officer, JNAC, son of Bhuneshwar Prajapati, resident of Manju Niwas, Behind Ramgarh College, Village Muraram Kalan, Ramgarh, P.O and P.S. and District- Ramgarh, Jharkhanjd. 4. The Executive Engineer, NREP Office, IInd Floor, Collectroate Office, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. 5. The Assistant Engineer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Sakchi, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. 6. Junior Engineer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Sakchi, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate. For JNAC Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate. ------ 11/17.08.2026 Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the representations dated 04.12.2021 and 08.02.2022 (Annexures- 7 and 10), preferred by the petitioner, and release the outstanding dues in favour of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has a registered firm by the name of M/s Tridev Enterprises who has been allotted the work of supply and installation of 200 number of 4ft. x 3ft. size of Retro Reflected Board to display the name of various Mohalla/Gali/Path of the City by the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (for short ‘JNAC’) of Jharkhand vide letter No. 2593 dated 27.12.2017. Thereafter the work of installation of only 111 number of 4ft x 3ft size of Retro Reflected Board has been completed by the Department Engineers and the payment of the bill has been made by the JNAC on 22.11.2018. Thereafter the petitioner requested the JNAC for providing him the list of names of Mohalla/Gali/Path falling under the Western Assembly Area so that remaining work can be done, but the said list could not be provided to the petitioner inspite of several requests. The petitioner has also preferred application dated 5.7.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur mentioning therein about the aforesaid fact. Thereafter, the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer of JNAC has given a list of names of 89 Mohalla/Gali/Path falling under the Western Assembly Area on 23.9.2021 to the petitioner. The petitioner started the work on 24.9.2021 and the information in this regard had been provided to the concerned Engineers and final amount of Rs.9,43,400/- has also been approved by the Executive Engineer of NREP in the measurement book. After completion of the work, the petitioner also preferred an application to the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee on 4.12.2021 for making final payment of Rs.9,43,400/-, but the payment of the said amount of Rs.9,43,400/- including the earnest money and amount of security which is in total Rs. 2,12,000/- (total Rs. 11,55,400/-) has been stopped by the JNAC. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application on 08.02.2022 to the Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-In-Charge, Sakchi, Jamshedpur with a copy of the said application to the superior officials, but respondent No.3 instead of taking steps for payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount to the petitioner, he has lodged an F.I.R., being Sakchi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2022 on 09.02.2022 under Sections 353, 186, 447, 385, 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not installed all 200 retro-board/signboard though he represented to refund his security money as well as earnest money. He further submits that the payment has already been made against the work done by the petitioner as he has installed on 111 retro- board/sign board. 5. After hearing both the parties, I find that the petitioner submits that he has completed the entire work but the respondent disputes the aforesaid fact and stated that the work was not fully done by the petitioner. There is a dispute regarding the work done by the petitioner. This disputed fact cannot be decided in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it requires evidence. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing appropriate application along with supporting documents claiming for relief, as sought for in this writ petition. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th August, 2026 Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on 19/08/2026