2026:JHHC:11391-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5422 of 2024 ----- M/s. Uday Singh and Brothers through its proprietor Uday Singh, s/o Late Bhagwan Singh, having office at Purana Chief House, P.O.-Giddi-A & P.S.-Giddi, District-Hazaribagh. .......... 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, N.K. Area, CCL, P.O. Dakra & P.S. Khelari, District-Ranchi. 4. Staff Officer (E&M), N.K. Area, CCL, P.O. Dakra & P.S.-Khelari, District-Ranchi. .......... 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. The petitioner, by instituting this petition, has prayed for the following relief: - “It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash show cause notice dated 16/08/2024 and for quashing of order dated 05/09/2024 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 pursuant to issuance of show cause notice 16/08/2024, cancelled the award of work issued in favour of petitioner under NIT No.GM(NK)/E&M/e-NIT/2024-25/190 and further the earnest money amounting Rs.13,700/- was forfeited for non-submission of valid performance security deposit as well as additional performance security deposit as per notice inviting no. being NIT No. GM(NK)/E&M/eNIT/2024-25/190 dated 14/12/2023 and further direct the respondent no. 4 to issue work order in favour of petitioner after accepting the PSD & APSD submitted by the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid NIT.” 3. The work in this case had to be completed within 30 days from the date of issue of the work order. From the record, it is seen 2026:JHHC:11391-DB 2 that performance security deposit as well as additional performance security deposit was not furnished by the petitioner despite the NIT requiring the petitioner to do so. 4. Because of non-submission, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the work order issued should not be cancelled and the earnest money deposit of Rs.13,700/- should not be forfeited. 5. Upon considering the petitioner’s response, order dated 5th September, 2024 has been passed and we see no error in the passing of the same. 6. The petitioner, in reply to the show-cause notice did submit two fixed deposit receipts, however, they were in the name of a different firm i.e., M/s. Singh Electricals. The petitioner contended that the partners of this firm were his sons. An affidavit was also filed purportedly by the partners of the firm. However, upon examination, it was found that this affidavit was signed by the petitioner himself. 7. Considering the above serious discrepancies, we detect no error in the impugned order which was made after due compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play. 8. For the above reasons, we see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 20th April, 2026 Rohit/Rashmi Uploaded on 21.04.2026