2026:JHHC:11715 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2778 of 2026 ------- Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, S/o Late Radhanath Chatterjee, R/o Village- Aralgaria, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Putki, Dist.-Dhanbad .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, Dist.-Dhanbad 2. General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Putki, Balihari Area, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Putki, Dist.-Dhanbad 3. Project Officer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Putki Balihari Area, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.-Putki, Dist.-Dhanbad 4. Area Civil Engineer, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Putki Balihari Area, P.O.-Kusunda, P.S.-Putki, Dist.-Dhanbad … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 06/ 21.04.2026: By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for following relief: a. For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an order or direction for quashing the reasoned order issued under Memo No. 28 dated 27.3.2024/8.4.2024 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the respondent no. 3 purported to have rejected the representation made by the petitioner in terms of order dated 25.8.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 1489 of 2015; b. For an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order or direction commanding upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.41,37,366.29/ with an interest @ 12% per annum within a specified period; and 2. After going through the writ petitioner and after hearing the parties, in fact this writ petition is in the nature of money claim. The work of petitioner as per the petitioner had come to an end in 1991. It is the grievance of the petitioner that till date the part amount has not been paid. The petitioner approached several authorities and as per the petitioner there is a report also but the same has not been considered and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He approached this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner with the direction to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the documents are not available. 3. Be that as it may, the work as per the petitioner was completed more than 30 years ago. The petitioner is claiming money which was due to him for more than 30 years. Even filing of a representation and dismissal of the representation pursuant to any order of the Court, cannot benefit to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) v. Manoharlal reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has held as under- 353. In U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 500] , this Court has observed that if a claimant is aware of the violation of his rights and does not claim his remedies, such inaction or conduct tantamounts a waiver of the right. In such cases, the lapse of time and delay are most material and cannot be ignored by the Court. In Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84] , the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed that the Court cannot go into the stale demands after a lapse of several years. This Court observed thus : (Rabindranath Bose case [Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84] , SCC pp. 96-97, para 32) “32. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly urges that the decision of this Court in Tilokchand Motichand case [Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110] needs review. But after carefully considering the matter, we are of the view that no relief should be given to the petitioners who, without any reasonable explanation, approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The highest Court in this land has been given original jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. It could not have been the intention that this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of years. It is said that Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right. So it is, but it does not follow from this that it was the intention of the Constitution- makers that this Court should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed after inordinate delay.” 4. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of the stale claim which is of the year 1991. This writ application is hereby dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 21 st April, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:07/05/2026