2026:JHHC:11390-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4990 of 2024 ----- M/s. Singh Electrical through its proprietor Shashikant Singh, s/o Uday Singh, having office at Giddi-A, Near Taxi Stand Religara, P.O. & P.S. Giddi, District-Hazaribag. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. C.C.L. through its CMD, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 2. G.M. (E&M), Department, C.C.L., Darbhanga House, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. General Manager, Argada Area, CCL, P.O. & P.S. Argada, District- Ramgarh. 4. Staff Officer (E&M), Argada Area, CCL, P.O. & P.S.-Argada, District-Ramgarh. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shivam U. Sahay, Advocate ----- Order No.04 Date: 20.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By instituting this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief: - “It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate writ in form of certiorari and quash order dated 20-7-24 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent no.4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner firm has been debarred/banned from participating in future tenders of CCL for period of 1 year and also the earnest money deposit of the petitioner amount Rs.21,800/- has also been forfeited.” 3. Firstly, the debarment which is challenged in this petition, was for one year, which term has already expired. Secondly, the debarment was because the petitioner refused to furnish the 2026:JHHC:11390-DB 2 additional performance security despite receiving the notice for furnish of the same. 4. In response to the show-cause notice dated 11th October, 2023 issued to the petitioner, the petitioner inter alia submitted as follows:- “The undersigned has categorically stated in the said reply that 2 bills amounting to Rs.22 lakhs odd issued by M/s Uday Singh & amp; Brothers is pending before the CCL for Religara Project, Argada Area and the same has not been cleared till date, therefore it was requested by the undersigned to adjust the additional performance security from the said pending bills. Along with the said reply the undersigned has also annexed a declaration issued from the proprietor of M/s Uday Singh & Brothers that he would have no objection if the said adjustment is made.” 5. The aforesaid response, in terms implies that the petitioner was supposed to furnish the additional performance security. The contention in the reply that the petitioner’s father is supposed to receive some amounts towards the pending bills concerning some different contract and that such amounts may be adjusted towards additional performance security out of the said pending bills is entirely misconceived. 6. The contention proceeds on the basis that some amounts were indeed due to the petitioner’s father and that the petitioner has a right to insist that those amounts should be adjusted towards additional performance security. Apart from the fact that such a request was contrary to the terms of the contract, such a request proceeds on imponderables which, the petitioner, has incorrectly taken as accepted by the respondents. 2026:JHHC:11390-DB 3 7. From the pleadings in the petition and counter affidavit, we are satisfied that there is no case for interference. In any event, the debarment which was to operate for one year has long since expired. 8. The petitioner’s W.P.(C) No.7310 of 2023, by which LOA issued to the petitioner was cancelled, has also been disposed of by us by separate order made today. 9. For the above reasons, we dispose of this petition with no order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 20th April, 2026 Rohit/Rashmi Uploaded on 20.04.2026