2026:JHHC:5478-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1130 of 2026 ----- Motive8 Services, through its proprietor namely Satwik Mishra, son of Surendra Nath Mishra, R/o- Flat No.8/H Oak Forest Phase 1 Argora, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Simdega. 4. The District Planning Officer, Simdega. 5. The Project Director-ITDA. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Afsar Raja, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG ----- Order No.06 Date: 25.02.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, claiming to be the L1 bidder in the tender process, instituted this petition for acceptance of its bid. This petition was instituted on 09.05.2025. All defects were ultimately cleared on 13.02.2026, after opportunities were granted to the petitioner to clear the same. 3. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to AG now states that since there was no interim relief, a very short-term tender notices dated 06.01.2026 and 10.01.2026 were issued for the same work (second call), pursuant to which work orders have been issued on 27.01.2026 and 17.02.2026. 4. Neither the said tender notices nor the freshly issued work orders have been challenged in this petition. 2026:JHHC:5478-DB 2 5. The record shows that the petitioner had objected to the denial of work order in its favour and the attempt to award the work to certain parties, who, according to the petitioner, were ineligible. The petitioner’s complaint was favourably considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega and the entire tender process was cancelled. The cancellation of the entire tender process is challenged in this petition. 6. Now that fresh tenders were called and even work orders have been issued, it would be difficult to set the clock back, even assuming that the petitioner’s case, as pleaded, has any merit. Ultimately, these are works concerning Hydroponics Integration for Vegetable Cluster Establishment in Simdega. Such works have to be carried out expeditiously. 7. Therefore, we dispose of this petition leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek damages, if, the petitioner still believes that the cancellation of the entire tender process and the consequent non-award of the work order in its favour was illegal, unfair, or unconstitutional. We, however, clarify that neither we have formed nor expressed any opinion on this issue and, therefore, all contentions of all the parties in this regard are left open. 8. Further, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the fresh tender notices or the fresh award of works but we clarify that all contentions of all parties in this regard are kept explicitly open. 2026:JHHC:5478-DB 3 9. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, without any order as to costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 25th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 26.02.2026