2026:JHHC:26633 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5365 of 2021 ------ M/s. Anand Enterprises, proprietor concern having its office at Jaina More Site, P.O. & P.S. Jaina More, District Bokaro, Jharkhand, through its proprietor Anand Mahto, son of Jyoti Ram Mahto, resident of Village Bandhdih, P.O. & P.S. Jaina More, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Chief Engineer-cum-General Manager, Electricity Supply Area, Dhanbad, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Combined Building, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad. 4. The Director Finance (F&A), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Manager (F&A), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle, Chas, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. 7. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division Tenughat, under Electricity Supply Division Tenughat, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., having its office at P.O. & P.S. Tenughat, District Bokaro. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar, SC ------ 07/ 02.09.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(A) For a direction upon the Respondents to pay the admitted dues of the Petitioner in terms of Work Order No. 08/RE/CE/RE/298 /12-13 dated 31.01.2013 and Agreement 2026:JHHC:26633 2 dated 21.02.2013 entered into between the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner, which as per the calculation arrived at by the Petitioner comes to Rs.83,37,343/- (Rupees Eighty Three Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Three) inclusive of interest as on September, 2021. (B) For a direction upon the Respondents to show cause as to under what circumstances the bill raised by the Petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Work Order dated 31.01.2013 and Agreement between the parties have not been honoured till date inspite of the fact that the same has already been processed and approved by the concerned Accounts Department of the Respondent No.2. (C) For a direction upon the Respondent to make payment of the illegally held-up amount of the Petitioner under various bills raised by him at the earliest along with the interest component as agreed between the parties.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), vide Work Order No.08/RE/CE/RE/298/12-13 dated 31.01.2013, awarded work of “Collection Based Rural Distribution Franchisee in JSEB for Phusro Electricity Supply Sub-Division, as per NIT Specification No.598/PR/JSEB/12-13, to the petitioner-Firm. Accordingly, an Agreement was arrived at between the respondents and the petitioner-Firm. The work contract was also extended thereafter 2026:JHHC:26633 3 from time to time. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Firm that the bill raised for payment of dues, which according to the petitioner-Firm are admitted, pursuant to the aforesaid work, has not yet been disbursed to the petitioner-Firm. 5. On the query made in respect of admission on part of the respondents that the dues are admitted, learned counsel representing the petitioner – Firm submits that the respondents themselves sanctioned the bill to the tune of 38,96,119/- but due to audit objection the payment could not have been made. To buttress his submission, he referred to para-5 and para-29 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7. Learned Counsel also referred to the orders and judgment passed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court, reported in (2023) SCC OnLine Jhar 1813 [Ramesh Dutt Pathak Vs. State of Jharkhand], 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1030 [Jharkhand Urga Utpadan Nigam Limited through its Chairman & Ors. Vs. South West Pinnacle Exploration Pvt. Limited & Ors.], 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3117 [Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and 2026:JHHC:20891 [W.P.(C) No.1563 of 2025] [M/s Eagle Infra India Limited Vs. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) & Anr.]. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner has raised the bill to the tune of 38,96,119/- and the same was sanctioned but due to audit objection raised by the 2026:JHHC:26633 4 CAG, payment could not be made. The CAG has pointed out that the compensation O&M expenses were not as per the slab of agreement and incentives were also given for the month in which there was decrease in collection in revenue for the current month compared to corresponding month for the base year as an excess payment of compensation amount and incentives to tune of Rs. 1.35 lakh among four companies were involved out of which Rs. 26.83 lakh was related with M/s Anand Enterprises i.e. the petitioner. He further submits that the withheld amount will be released after submission of the required documents by the petitioner. 7. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that there is an audit objection of CAG. The petitioner-Firm has also not challenged the audit report. Thus, for the release of the dues, the petitioner-Firm has to satisfy the respondents for redressal of grievance, either by filing objection to the audit report of CAG, or by furnishing relevant documents. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it cannot be said that the dues are admitted. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. The petitioner – Company is at liberty to file suit for payment of dues before competent Civil Court. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02nd September, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 07.09.2026