2026:JHHC:856 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 829 of 2012 --- Sudama Singh represented through its Proprietor Sudama Singh, son of Late Neman Singh, resident of Tapin South Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Tapin, Charhi, District- Hazaribagh … … Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi 2. General Manager (Sales), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : None For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate Order No. 12 Dated: 13.01.2026 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release 300 M.T. of coal in favour of the petitioner-company. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to release the earnest money along with suitable interest in its favour in case they have any valid impediment in releasing the aforesaid coal. 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Reference may be made to order dated 26.11.2015, which reads as under: “It is submitted by counsels for the parties that an identical issue is pending before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 198 of 2013. Under the said circumstance, put up this case after disposal of the aforesaid L.P.A.” 4. It thus appears that the present writ petition remained pending awaiting disposal of L.P.A. No. 198 of 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid L.P.A., which was filed by the Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors., has been allowed by the learned Division Bench of this court vide order dated 22.11.2018. 2026:JHHC:856 2 6. The issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to that of W.P.(C) No. 2263 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 08.05.2013 in favour of the petitioner of the said case. Being aggrieved with the said order, L.P.A. No. 198 of 2013 was preferred by the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL), which was allowed vide order dated 22.11.2018. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed in the aforesaid L.P.A. are quoted as under: “10. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2263 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2013, and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Whenever there is a breach of contract and the prayer is for the specific performance or for damages, the best remedy available to such type of person to file a suit so that on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence on record rights and liabilities of the parties can be decided. 12. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2263 of 2013, dated 08.05.2013, reserving the liberty with this respondent to approach the trial court by way of suit. As and when such suit is filed, the same will be decided independently, on the merit of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record and in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2263 of 2013, judgment and order dated 08.05.2013 and without being influenced by the order passed by the Division Bench in this Letters Patent Appeal. 13. With this observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. 14. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal, I.A. No.4847 of 2013 stands disposed of.” 7. Since, in the aforesaid judgment, the learned Division Bench has clearly held that if there is a breach of contract and the prayer 2026:JHHC:856 3 made in the writ petition is for the specific performance or for seeking damages, the best remedy available for the aggrieved person is to file a suit by laying cogent and convincing evidence, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in L.P.A. No. 198 of 2013 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction, if so advised, against the action taken by the respondent-CCL. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) January 13, 2026 Ritesh/ Uploaded on 14.01.2026