2026:JHHC:9276-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 18 of 2026 Pushpa Sales Private Limited, having its registered office at 55JHA/148, Ramnagar, Alambag, PO-Chandra Nagar, PS-Manak Nagar, District-Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) and also having address at B-231-LGF, Greater Kailash-I, PO & PS-Greater Kailash-I, District- New Delhi, through its duly authorized representative Sri Rahul Katiyar ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Health Services, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Health Services, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, 104/D, Road No. 1, Ashok Kunj, Kadru, Ranchi, through its Managing Director 6. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, 104/D, Road No. 1, Ashok Kunj, Kadru, Ranchi 7. The Executive Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, 104/D, Road No. 1, Ashok Kunj, Kadru, Ranchi 8. The Manager-cum-Executive Engineer, Project Implementation Unit, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Limited, 104/D, Road No. 1, Ashok Kunj, Kadru, Ranchi 9. M/s. Vijeta Projects & Infrastructure Limited, having its registered office at West Morabadi Maidan, Bariatu, Ranchi, through its Chairman 10. M/s. Medical Products Services, 71/2, A-6, Rama Road, Industrial Area, PO & PS-Moti Nagar, District-West New Delhi, through its Managing Director ... … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party Nos.1-4 : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GP-III ----- Order No. 3 Dated: 02.04.2026 1. We record that the learned counsel for the parties have no objection 2026:JHHC:9276-DB 2 to this Bench taking up this review petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition seeks review of order dated 23.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 918 of 2019, which is transcribed below for the convenience of reference. “The writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent events such as Covid-19 pandemic and the completion of the Hospital Project, in question, by a person who is said to have been allowed by the official respondents to complete the said work. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Any inter-se claim which the petitioner has with his principal employer or against the party, who has been allowed to complete the construction work, shall be pursued by the petitioner in the appropriate forum. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.” 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that by order dated 06.05.2021 made in W.P.(C) No. 918 of 2019, there was a direction to secure payment to the extent of Rs.1.41 crores by way of a Bank Guarantee to be furnished by M/s. Medical Products Services (10th respondent). He submitted that given this order, the petition, could not have been disposed of as infructuous and some decision should have been taken on the issue of payment of the sum of Rs.1.41 crores to the petitioner here. 5. We have considered the above contention but we fail to comprehend as to how such an argument can constitute an error apparent on 2026:JHHC:9276-DB 3 the face of record of our order dated 23.04.2025. 6. The petition was disposed of as infructuous because of the completion of the Hospital Project in question by the person who had been allowed by the official respondent to complete the said work i.e., the 10th respondent. However, while disposing of the petition as infructuous, the Court clarified that inter-se claims which the petitioner has with his principal employer or against the party who has been allowed to complete the construction work i.e., the 10th respondent, shall be pursued by the petitioner in the appropriate forum. Thus, liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue whatever claims it had against its principal employer or the 10th respondent. It is not as if the order dated 23.04.2025 had closed the petitioner’s options with regard to such claims. 7. Therefore, we see no merit in this review petition and dismiss the same given the liberties granted to the petitioner by the order dated 23.04.2025. No costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) April 02, 2026 Manish/Ritesh Uploaded on 04.04.2026