( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1909 of 2008 M/s. Triveni Enterprises, a Partnership Firm, having its office at 14, C.H. Area (North), Road NO. 5, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. - Bistupur, District Singhbhum East, through one of its Partners Govind Prasad Agrawal, son of Late Satya Narayan Dodrajka, Resident of 14, C.H. Area (North), Road NO. 5, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, District - Singhbhum East. ……………Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand,Ranchi 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Chief Engineer, Subernrekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex, P.O. and P.S. Adtiyapur, District Seraikela Kharsawan. 5. Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Barrage Circle, Galudih, P.O. Mahulia, P.S. Galudih, District Singhbhum East; 6. Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution Division No. 7, R/o-Galudih, P.O. Mahulia, P.S. Galudih, District Singhbhum East ...... …Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to Mr. A.A.G.-II 09/ 24.03.2026: Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This petition has been filed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.2), by which he has decided the representation of the petitioner for payment of balance amount which was pending approval of the Department being an amount of Rs. 25,35,487/- being the remaining amount of the variation beyond 25% of the agreemental value in compliance of the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 4976 of 2007 and by the said order the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reconsider the matter for granting approval and sanction for payment of Rs.25,35,487/-. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gagoddia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 2 a tender was floated for the subject works for construction of CD (Cross Drainage) Works at Kms. 95.31, 99.27, 101.97, 103.48 and earth works from Kms. 94.20 to 106.46 of Chandil Left Bank Main Canal under the Subernrekha Project which was issued vide NIT No. 2003 04 issued by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution No. 7, Galudih. He further submits that the petitioner became successful tenderer and the said subject work was awarded to the petitioner for a total value of Rs.13,87,53,538.10 vide letter dated 17.11.2003. He submits that petitioner had also deposited the earnest money of Rs.33 Lacs in the shape of Bank Guarantee and NSC and the petitioner further deposited the balance security of 3% amounting to Rs.36,37,677.00 within two days for executing the agreement. He further submtis that agreement for the aforesaid work was executed on 20.11.2003 and the work was thus to be completed by 19.05.2005. He submits that the petitioner also submitted a detailed work programme and to execute work by immediately mobilizing the plants and machinery. He then submits that up to the period 22.01.2004, on which date the petitioner, vide its letter, informed the Executive Engineer that it has executed the work of more than Rs.60,00,000/- but the payment was behind schedule and amount of only Rs.40,00,000/- was released to the petitioner. He also submits that the Executive Engineer was not paying to the petitioner for the works executed on realistic basis so far as the rate to excavate the earth with disposal was concerned and therefore, the petitioner requested the Department vide its various letters for approving the actual lead of disposal in the field and make payment accordingly. There was no rate in the contract nor there was any work prescribed or mentioned for disposal of excavated earth beyond 500 meters. He further submits that during the execution of the contract, it also came to light that the agreement did not cover the excavation of earth work and other works between KM 94.64 to 96.97 and therefore, the Executive Engineer requested vide letter dated 27.01.2005, asking the consent of the petitioner for execution of the aforesaid work also on the agreement rate. The petitioner gave the consent and also requested the Executive Engineer to execute the supplementary agreement for ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 3 the additional works for which additional security amounting to Rs. 11,27,000/- was deposited on 27.05.2005. He also submits that a supplementary agreement for the work was executed on 06.08.2005 for the works between K.M. 94.64 to 96.97 for a total work value of Rs. 2,19,52,180.71 and thus the original work was enhanced and the time for completion was also extended up to 10.05.2006 due to enhanced value of work. He further submits that the works at different stages could not be completed due to hindrance raised by local villages and the petitioner applied for extension vide letter dated 21.05.2006. He further submits that the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 22.07.2006 extended the time upto 31.12.2006. He also submits that the petitioner has again applied for extension of time upto 30.06.2007 for completion of work however, no response was made. He submits that the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 08.12.2006 has given remarks that the works have almost been completed and the said certificate discloses that amount of Rs. 17, 34,41,922/- only has been paid to the petitioner on 26.03.2007 and thus, restricting the further payment of balance amount for want of variation beyond 25%. He further submits that by letter dated 27.10.2005 the rate for any extra work was executed beyond the agreement and the report to that effect was also given by the concerned authority contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner has filed representation to release the amount however, no action was taken and thereafter the petitioner was compelled to move before this Court in W.P.C. No. 4976 of 2007 which was disposed of on 12.09.2007 directing the concerned department to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order has been passed by which the entire claim of the petitioner has been rejected which is beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement. He further submits that the amount sanction was already made and payment was also made and now by the impugned order the Secretary is saying that the said sanction itself is not in accordance with law which is further beyond his jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled for admitted dues for the extra excavation work and further refund of Rs. ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 4 1,73,75,908/- as security deposit. He further submits that the Secretary has passed order and in view of that an appropriate order may kindly be passed for payment of amount. He also submits that if admitted dues is there High Court is competent to pass order for payment and there are several judgments to that effect and in view of that this writ petition may kindly be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State oppose the prayer and submits that Secretary while passing the order has discussed the facts as well as taken into consideration the clauses of agreements and thereafter has passed order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the concerned Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur was directed to submit a Status Report and variation statement against the agreement to the department enabling Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order according to the direction of the Hon'ble Court and the Chief Engineer submitted the Status Report and variation proposal which was received in the department on 07.11.2007. He submits that the Secretary took over the charge of Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand in the afternoon of 21.11.2007. When the matter was brought to his notice, he heard in detail the grievances of the petitioner and discussed the matter with Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer (Monitoring) and thereafter passed the reasoned order. He further submits that the Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur has submitted a proposal of Rs. 19,24,64,742.86 inclusive of variation in agreemented item as well as extra items against the agreemented value of 13,87,53,538.10.. He also submits that the Chief Engineer has proposed 13 nos. of agreemented items in which increase in quantity is more than 25% and 9 nos. of extra items for approval from the department pursuant to the order of the High Court. He further submits that the Engineer-in-Chief and his office has examined the proposal of the Chief Engineer and found that the Chief Engineer has approved different rates for different periods for each extra items which is not lawful and in accordance of clause 11 of the contract. He refers to clause 11 of the agreement and submits that Engineer-in-Charge shall have power ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 5 to make any alternation in additions to the original specifications, drawing and instructions that may appear to him to be necessary or advisable during the progress of the work. The said clause also provides that the contractor shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him writing signed by the Engineer-in-Charge and such alteration shall not invalidate the contract and any additional work. He submits that the Engineer-in- Chief and his team has found that the rates of extra items should have been decided in accordance with clause-11 of the agreement as noted in pages 13 to 20 of the counter affidavit. He next submits that in view of proposals of the Chief Engineer Chandil Complex, Adityapur and examination of the proposals by the Engineer-in-Chief and his team, the Secretary came to the conclusion that there is no dues/admitted dues against the work done to be paid to the contractor, rather Rs. 1,10,06,184.16 is to be-recovered from the contractor. The work under the said agreement has not been completed till date, hence refund of security deposit is not lawful and, therefore, a reasoned order was passed in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4976 of 2007 and in view of that there is disputed question of fact and law as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. In the light of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it appears that a tender was floated for the subject works for construction of CD (Cross Drainage) Works at Kms. 95.31, 99.27, 101.97, 103.48 and earth works from Kms. 94.20 to 106.46 of Chandil Left Bank Main Canal under the Subernrekha Project which was issued vide NIT No. 2003-04 issued by the Executive Engineer, Minor Distribution No. 7, Galudih. Pursuant to that the petitioner has started the work as noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and how the work was delayed and further was extended at one point of time that has also come in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The another letter for extension by the petitioner was not replied by the department. The petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in W.P.C. No. ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 6 4976 of 2007 which was disposed of on 12.09.2007 directing the Department to take a decision on the admitted dues of the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Secretary of the Water Resource Department. From perusal of the order passed by the Secretary, it transpires that he has given the reasoning in deciding the representation pursuant to order of the High Court. The Secretary has taken into consideration of Clause-11 of condition of Contract and thereafter he has analyzed the opinion of the Engineer-in Chief and the Chief Engineer (Monitoring) and also with the observations made by the Accountant General on the issue and thereafter he has found that by the then Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex, Adityapur, Superintending Engineer, Barrage Circle, Galudih are not based on agreemented provisions and show the tendency to provide undue favours and benefits to the Contractor i.e. petitioner. He has found that the contractor was provided the rates for the extra item approved incorrectly by the Chief Engineer even without signing supplementary agreement and on this background he has rejected the claim of the petitioner by saying that dues are not admitted. He has further found that dues of Rs. 1,10,06,184.16 is to be recovered from the contractor and the work under the said agreement has not been completed till date and further found that refund of security deposit is not lawful. 6. In this background, it appears that there is disputed question of fact and the dues are not being admitted by the Department. The Clause-11 has been interpreted by the Secretary in the impugned order. In “Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Kurein E. Kalathil and others” 2000 (6)SCC 293, the Hon’ble Court has held that the interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition. Whether a contract envisages actual payment or not is a question of construction of contract. If a term of contract is violated, ordinarily remedy is not the writ petition under Article 226. A contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and it has been awarded by a statutory body. ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 7 7. The dispute relating to interpretation of terms and condition of such contract, cannot be agitated in a petition under Article, 226 of the Constitution of India. The said dispute is a matter of agitation before the Civil Court or in Arbitration if provided in the contract. 8. Whether any amount is due or if so how much refusal of the petitioner to pay it is justified or not, are matter which can not be agitated in the said writ petition. Remedy to the contractor is that if he is aggrieved for non payment he is either to file civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, go for arbitration. 9. The nature of the prayer is in the form of money dealing and in the light of above the said amount has not been admitted by the State. 10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that no case of interference is made out and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. 11. It is open to the petitioner if so advised, he may move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Dt.24.03.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-