2026:JHHC:20891

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.1563 of 2025

------

M/S. EAGLE INFRA INDIA LIMITED, a Company within the meaning

of section 2 (20) of the Companies Act, 2013, having its registered

office at BK No-758, Room No.-16, NR Plot No-59, NR Chopra Court,

Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra 421003, represented by authorized

representative, Mr. Prashant Vasantrao Khandale son of Mr.

Vasantrao Baliram Khandale, aged about 61 years, resident of 1572

- Meher -Abode, Line No. 2 Near Z. P. Primary School, Jawahar

Nagar, P.O. & P.S-Akola, Town & District-Akola.

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. JHARKHAND URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY LIMITED (JUIDCO) through its secretary, having its

Office at 2nd Floor, Vasundhara Mega Mart, Argora Chowk, P.O.

& P.S.- Argora, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand.).

2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure

Development Company Limited (JUIDCO), having his Office at

2nd Floor, Vasundhara Mega Mart, Argora Chowk, P.O. & P.S.-

Argora Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand.)

… … Respondents

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate,

Through V.C.

Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate

------

J U D G M E N T

CAV on : 09/07/2026 Pronounced on : 15/07/2026

------

At the outset it is relevant to note that this case was

initially taken up by the Division Bench, as all tender matters, as

per the roster, were to be heard by the Division Bench. After the

change of roster, matters relating to admitted contractual dues are

to be heard by the Single Bench, thus this matter has been listed

before this Court.

Learned counsel Mr. Krishna Murari, appeared through

2026:JHHC:20891

2

virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to quality or clarity

in the audio and the video.

RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS WRIT

PETITION :-

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order

or direction, directing upon the

Respondents to show cause as to how

and under what authority of law, the

running bills, being R.A. No. 29 is not

being released, though works have been

completed to the satisfaction of the

Respondents.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order

or direction, directing upon the

Respondents to show cause as to how

and under what authority of law, the dues

of the petitioner with regard to the

Operation & Maintenance work is not

being released though works have been

completed to the satisfaction of the

Respondents.

(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order

or direction, directing upon the

Respondents to forthwith release the

pending dues of the petitioner alongwith

applicable interest towards the running

bills as also the bills pertaining to

Operation and Maintenance work.

(d) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order

or direction, directing upon the

respondent to make payment for the

period between 01.11.2023 till date,

which are the extra months of working

2026:JHHC:20891

3

without there being any extension of

agreement and for non-taking over of the

site in question, though the petitioner has

making repeated requests for the same.

(e) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order

or direction, directing upon the

respondent to release the Bank

Guarantee of the petitioner, since after

the completion of the agreement viz.,

operation & maintenance, which came to

end on 31.10.2023, there is no reason for

the respondent to keep the Bank

Guarantee of the petitioner alive, which is

an extra burden upon the petitioner.”

2. GRIEVANCES OF THE PETITIONER :-

The case of petitioner is that the petitioner was

awarded a contract in 2015 by JUIDCO for the Harmu River

rejuvenation project, including five years of Operation &

Maintenance (O & M). The petitioner completed the project on

31.10.2018 and O & M work on 31.10.2023, but JUIDCO allegedly

failed to release the final running bill (R.A. Bill No. 29), O&M dues,

payment for work performed after 31.10.2023 due to non-handing

over of the site, and also did not release the Bank Guarantee,

despite successful completion of the contract. Despite repeated

representations and JUIDCO's acknowledgment that the work had

been completed and the final bill was under scrutiny, payment was

withheld. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court filing this

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying

therein to release the admitted dues of the petitioner and also

2026:JHHC:20891

4

release the Bank Guarantee.

3. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was awarded the contract pursuant to a valid tender

process and the petitioner executed the entire project along with

the Operation and Maintenance obligations. The respondents

themselves issued the Completion Certificate and subsequently by

letter dated 29.01.2024, acknowledged that the project, as well as

the O&M period, had been completed and that the final bill was

under scrutiny. Once completion of work has been admitted, there

remains no justification for withholding the final running bill, O&M

dues and other consequential payments. No defect, breach of

contract or deficiency has ever been communicated to the

petitioner and neither they reject the petitioner's bills nor passed

any order assigning reasons for withholding payment. He further

submitted that the contractual period of Operation and

Maintenance expired on 31.10.2023. However, despite repeated

requests, the respondents failed to take over possession of the

project. The petitioner had no option but to continue maintaining

the project solely because the respondents did not assume

possession. It is also submitted by the learned counsel on behalf

of this petitioner, that the Bank Guarantee was furnished only to

secure due performa nce of the contract. The contractual

obligations having been fully discharged, and the O&M period

having expired on 31.10.2023, there exists no legal basis requiring

the petitioner to continue renewing the Bank Guarantee. He finally

2026:JHHC:20891

5

submitted that the respondents have withheld substantial

contractual dues for an inordinate period without any lawful

justification. Hence, the respondents may be directed to forthwith

release the petitioner's admitted dues together with applicable

interest and consequential reliefs.

4. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS :-

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

relief sought by the petitioner essentially pertains to recovery of

money under a commercial contract, which cannot ordinarily be

entertained in writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that where

adjudication of contractual rights requires examination of disputed

facts, measurement records, certification of bills, contractual

compliances and financial scrutiny, the parties ought to be

relegated to the remedy contemplated under the contract. The

petitioner seeks payment from 01.11.2023 onwards on the ground

that the respondents did not take over the project. Such claim has

absolutely no contractual foundation. The doctrine of legitimate

expectation has no application where parties are governed by an

express written contract. The operation and maintenance period

stood completed on 31.10.2023. Any work allegedly performed

thereafter cannot automatically fasten financial liability upon the

respondents. Unless there is a valid extension order,

supplementary agreement, fresh work order, written approval of

competent authority, no payment can be claimed merely because

the petitioner continued to remain at the site voluntarily. It is also

submitted that the agreement provides for a contractual dispute

2026:JHHC:20891

6

resolution mechanism. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative

remedy of Arbitration by invoking arbitration clause or file

appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of money.

5. RESPONDENT’S ADMISSION IN RESPECT OF

RELEASE OF BANK GUARANTEE / PERFORMANCE

GUARANTEE :-

5.1. Before analyzing the arguments and facts, it is

necessary to note a very important factual admission made by the

respondents at the time of argument.

5.2. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel representing the

respondents at the very outset has stated that he had taken

instruction from his client, who had informed him that the Bank

Guarantee furnished by the petitioner has been released in entirety

in favour of the petitioner, 2-3 days’ back.

5.3. One of the prayers in the writ petition is for a direction

upon the respondents to release the Bank Guarantee. Since the

Bank Guarantee has already been released, this prayer of the

petitioner has become infructuous, but this voluntary release of

the Bank Guarantee in favour of the petitioner now (during

pendency of this application) will have a great ramification in this

case, which will be dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs at an

appropriate stage.

6. ANALYSIS :-

(A) LAW ON THE POINT MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT

PETITION IN RESPECT OF MONEY CLAIM : -

6.1. After hearing both the parties and going through the

2026:JHHC:20891

7

records of this case, I find that by filing this writ petition, the

petitioner – Company has claimed its outstanding monetary dues.

Before proceeding any further, it is to be seen as to whether money

claim / dues arising out of contract can be made under Article 226

of the Constitution of India or not or the parties mandatorily should

be relegated to the Civil Court.

6.2. In the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was

deciding the issue as to whether money claim can be made under

Article 226 of the Constitution or not.

In para-25 of the aforesaid judgment i.e. ABL

International Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after

recording the objection in this respect has held that the objection

cannot be accepted in its absolute terms. Further, in the said

paragraph, while taking note of the judgment in the case of U.P.

Pollution Control Board Vs. Kanoria Industrial Ltd. reported

in (2001) 2 SCC 549 and Suganmal Vs. State of M.P. reported

in AIR 1965 SC 1740 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined

that those judgment cannot be read as laying down the law that

no writ petition at all can be entertained for money claim. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is one thing to say that the

High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to

issue a writ of mandamus for refund of the money illegally

collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be

exercised sparingly depending upon the facts and circumstances

2026:JHHC:20891

8

of each case. In para-26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in

a given case, it is open to the Writ Court to give monetary relief

also.

In para-27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court established the

legal principle on the maintainability of writ petitions in contractual

matters and has held that in appropriate cases, writ petition

against the State is maintainable which arises out of contractual

obligation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that if merely

some disputed question of fact arises for consideration, the same

cannot be ground to not entertain the writ petition as a matter of

rule. A writ petition involving consequential relief of monetary

claim is also maintainable. Para-27 of the aforesaid judgment is

quoted hereinbelow:-

“27. From the above discussion of ours, the

following legal principles emerge as to the

maintainability of a writ petition:

(a) In an appropriate case, a writ

petition as against a State or an instrumentality of

a State arising out of a contractual obligation is

maintainable.

(b) Merely because some disputed

questions of fact arise for consideration, same

cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ

petition in all cases as a matter of rule.

(c) A writ petition involving a

consequential relief of monetary claim is also

maintainable.”

6.3. Further, in a recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors

Vs. Chief General Manager & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC

2026:JHHC:20891

9

OnLine SC 1400, at para-8, it has been held that it is not an

inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in

exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on

to hold that non-payment of admitted dues inter alia may be

considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for

claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. While holding this, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgment passed in the

case of Surya Constructions Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794 . Para-8 of the aforesaid order i.e.

M/s Utkal Highways Engineers (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-

“8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not

dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover,

it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can

be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be

considered an arbitrary action on the part of

respondents and for claiming the same, a writ

petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition

on ground of availability of alternative remedy after

10 years, particularly, when parties have

exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course

unless there are disputed questions of fact which

by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon

without recording formal evidence.”

6.4. Thus, from the aforesaid order, it is now well

established that monetary claim of admitted dues arising out of a

contract where State is a party, is amenable to writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution, as there is no absolute bar.

(B) LAW ON THE POINT OF ENTERTAINING A WRIT

PETITION INVOLVING DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACTS : -

2026:JHHC:20891

10

6.5. Now the next question arises is as to what extent a

dispute can be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution;

and whether a case which involves disputed question of facts

principally should be entertained by the High Court while

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or not. This issue has also

been addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL

International Ltd. (supra), wherein at para-16, it had been held

that there is no absolute rule that in all cases involving disputed

question of facts, the party should be relegated to a civil suit. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of para -7 of State of

Bihar & Ors. Vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. reported in

(2002) 1 SCC 216, has held that though the aforesaid judgment

shows that a writ petition involving serious disputed questions of

facts which requires consideration of evidence which is not on

record, will not normally be entertained by a court in the exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but

the said decision, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

does not lay down an absolute rule that in all cases involving

disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a civil

suit. In support of the said observation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

relied upon the judgment in a case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur & Ors.

Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors. reported in (1969)

3 SCC 769 (para-14 & 16).

“14. The High Court observed that they will not

determine disputed question of fact in a writ

petition. But what facts were in dispute and what

were admitted could only be determined after an

2026:JHHC:20891

11

affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High

Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition

in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its

jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226

merely because in considering the petitioner's right

to relief questions of fact may fall to be

determined. In a petition under Article 226 the

High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact

and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true,

discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised

on sound judicial principles. When the petition

raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which

may for their determination require oral evidence

to be taken, and on that account the High Court is

of the view that the dispute may not appropriately

be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may

decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in

limine will normally be justified, where the High

Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or

because of the nature of the claim made dispute

sought to be agitated, or that the petition against

the party against whom relief is claimed is not

maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is

such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the

writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.”

“16. In the present case, in our judgment, the

High Court was not justified in dismissing the

petition on the ground that it will not determine

disputed question of fact. The High Court has

jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, even if

they are in dispute and the present, in our

judgment, is a case in which in the interests of both

the parties the High Court should have entertained

the petition and called for an affidavit in reply from

the respondents, and should have proceeded to try

the petition instead of relegating the appellants to

a separate suit.”

2026:JHHC:20891

12

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the

judgment passed in Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs.

Ulhasnagar Municipal Council reported in (1970) 1 SCC 582 ,

specially para-13, wherein it has been held as hereunder:-

“Merely because a question of fact is raised, the

High Court will not be justified in requiring the

party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy

dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit

against a public body. The questions of fact raised

by the petition in this case are elementary.”

Ultimately, at para-19 in the case of ABL

International Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made

it clear that merely because one of the parties to the litigation

raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court

entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is

not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit.

6.6. Recently, in the case of M/s Jalakash Vs. the State

of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.6036 of 2020, vide order dated 25.01.2024, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court at para -6, has held that the writ petition is

maintainable, when it involves disputed question of fact but which

do not require elaborate recording of evidence. Para -6 of the

aforesaid order is quoted hereinbelow:-

“6. It is settled law as per the decision of this

Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. vs.

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.;

(2004) 3 SCC 553, that even in a writ petition

involving disputed question of facts, which do not

2026:JHHC:20891

13

require elaborate recording of the evidence, the

High Court can entertain the petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case,

non-exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, on the ground of

availability of an alternate remedy is not a hard and

fast rule but a rule of self-restraint.”

6.7. Thus, the offshoot of what has been discussed above as

per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear

that a money claim can be entertained and decided in an

application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even when there

is disputed question of fact, but which does not require elaborate

leading of evidence, a writ petition under Article 226 can be

entertained.

(C) FINDING ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE :-

6.8. Now considering the aforesaid proposition of law, we

have to see that what is the issue in this writ petition and what are

the disputes, if any, raised by the respondents.

6.9. It is the claim of the petitioner that his running bill being

R.A. No.29 has not been released, though the work has been

completed to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is also his case

that the dues of the petitioner with regard to maintenance and

operation work has also not been released though the same has

been completed to the satisfaction of the respondents. He prays

that these amounts be paid along with interest. Further, it is prayed

that the payment for the extra period which he has work ed i.e.

from 31.10.2023 till date, be also paid.

6.10. The work has been completed by the petitioner is not

2026:JHHC:20891

14

disputed. The communication dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure -9),

clearly suggests that the petitioner has completed the work as per

the Agreement and after completion of the project the petitioner

has also completed the stipulated five years of operation and

maintenance from 01.11.2018 to 31.10.2023. The communication

dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure-9) is extracted hereinbelow:-

“Letter no: JUIDCO/Harmu O&M/2381/2020(Part -C)Dated:4096

Dated: 29.01.2024

To Whom It May Concern

This is to certify that the Agency, M/s Eagle

Infra India Ltd., "Eagle Nest", Block No. 758,

Behind Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar 421003,

Thane, Maharashtra has executed the work of

"Detailed survey, investigations, designing &

drawing, river training, sewerage system,

sewerage treatment plants, storm water

drainage, landscaping, associated electrical

works & five years of operation & maintenance

for Rejuvenation Conservation of Harmu River

Project vide Agreement No. 6 dated

24.02.2015.

After completion of the project scope as

available on date, the Agency has also

completed the stipulated five (05) years of

Operation & Maintenance i.e. from 01.11.2018

to 31.10.2023.

Final bill of the above project is under scrutiny

and project has not been handed over till date.

This certificate is being issued against the

express request of M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd.

for their own purpose only and is being issued

without any contractual prejudice.

(S.S. Sengupta)

General Manager (WSS)”

7. As appear from the communication dated 29.01.2024,

the respondent acknowledged the project as well as the O&M had

2026:JHHC:20891

15

been completed and that the final bill was under scrutiny.

8. The respondents in their counter affidavit at para-8 has

also admitted that the work has been completed. In para -8 they

have made a categorical statement that after completion of work,

the matter was under consideration for payment. This also

suggests that there is no dispute in respect of completion of the

work.

9. The dispute which the respondents have raised is at

para-8 of the counter affidavit. They state that when the matter

was being considered for payment, the P.D. (T), who is the highest

technical person to grant technical approval has recorded contrary

opinion with respect of the quality of the work. Surprisingly, what

was the opinion and what is the documents in support of the said

opinion has not been brought on record. Just in one line, this

objection has been taken. According to this Court, this vague

statement is nothing but an act of the respondent to create a

dispute. This type of creation of dispute cannot be considered to

be a dispute of such a magnitude which can satisfy this Court to

relegate the writ petitioner to the Civil Court.

10. In para-9, surprisingly the respondent admits that even

after the aforesaid fact (i.e. the said note), the claim of the

petitioner was again processed for finalization before the Payment

Committee. Then there is some different opinion. Now, the opinion

of the Project Director (Technical), is that in spite of the work done

under rejuvenation and conservation of Harmu river project, there

has been no significant tangible improvement in the condition of

2026:JHHC:20891

16

the river. This is also not a ground to deny the monetary claim of

the petitioner. When admittedly the work which the petitioner was

entrusted to, has been completed, as per the work order, even if

ultimately it is seen or felt that the development is not significant,

the responsibility of such minimal development cannot be thrusted

upon the Contractor. It is for the Principal to do all the studies as

to whether the project will be feasible or not, or whether it will

achieve the purpose or not, before executing the project through

the Contractor. The question of viability of the project cannot be

raised after the contract has been awarded to complete the

project.

11. As noted earlier, the only objection taken is that there

was some objection in respect of quality of the work. As noted

above, there is no evidence in this respect appended to the counter

affidavit. This submission of the respondents also falls flat from

the circumstances and the conduct of the respondent themselves.

In this context, it is pertinent to mention what the respondents

have noted in para-16 of the counter affidavit. In para-16, the

respondent has categorically stated that the Bank Guarantee must

be retained and must be kept valid until the project reaches its full

and satisfactory conclusion and fulfilment of all post-execution

obligations as stipulated in the contract, thus the release of Bank

Guarantee is inadmissible and contrary to the spirit and letter of

the Agreement. It is necessary to quote para-16 of the counter

affidavit, which reads as hereunder:-

“16. That in view of the abovementioned facts

it is stated that the Performance Bank Guarantee

2026:JHHC:20891

17

must be retained and kept valid until the project

reaches its full and satisfactory conclusion and

fulfillment of all post-execution obligations as

stipulated in the contract. Any request for its

release at this juncture is therefore inadmissible

and contrary to the spirit and letter of the

agreement.”

12. In para-5.2 of this judgment, the admission of the

respondents through their counsel has been recorded to the effect

that 2-3 days’ back, the Bank Guarantee / Performance Guarantee

has been totally released in favour of the petitioner. This fact has

been affirmed by learned counsel representing the petitioner, in

the midst of argument, after taking immediate instruction from his

client. This release of Bank Guarantee now has to be read with the

statement made in para-16 of the counter affidavit quoted above.

When it is the stand of the respondent that the Bank Guarantee

cannot be released unless the work is completed fully and to the

satisfaction of the respondent, suo motu releasing the Bank

Guarantee by the respondents, without intervention of Court, that

too, during pendency of this writ petition, would naturally mean

that the project has reached its conclusion now and the completed

work is to the full satisfaction of the respondent and the petitioner

has fulfilled all the post execution obligation. Thus , the

respondents cannot now take any contrary plea about the

performance of the petitioner or the quality of the work and also

in respect of the obligation of the petitioner. Release of Bank

Guarantee / Performance Guarantee in favour of the petitioner will

lead to the only inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has

2026:JHHC:20891

18

completed all its obligations under the contract even the post

execution to the full satisfaction of the respondent. This act of

release of Bank Guarantee is an admission of the respondent by

conduct in support of the fact of unblemished completion of the

work to the satisfaction of the Respondent.

13. Further, it is also surprising that in para-12 of the

counter affidavit, the respondent has admitted that against the

R.A. Bill No.29, operation & maintenance, electricity bill etc., the

fund has not been made available till date by the Parent

Department and JUIDCO is merely an executing Agency. In para-

11 also, they state that National Environmental Engineering

Research Institute (NEERI), was requested to conduct a holistic

study on the environment impact of the project and to analyze the

overall condition, but NEERI expressed its inability to conduct the

re-survey of the work, thus the matter is pending for payment

awaiting release of the fund.

14. The respondents vide para-17 of the counter affidavit

have raised a dispute that the statutory limitation is three years

for raising money claim as the job completion certificate of the

contract in question was issued in the year 2019, which is six years

back. Thus, they take a plea of limitation. This plea of the

respondents also falls flat from para-15 of their counter affidavit,

wherein they admit that the project titled as “Rejuvenation and

Conservation of Harmu River” remains ongoing and active under

the existing contractual agreement and the project has not

reached its final conclusion, thus the Bank Guarantee cannot be

2026:JHHC:20891

19

released. This clearly contradicts their own statement made in

para-17.

15. Further, from the letter dated 29.01.2024, which is

quoted above in para-6.10, the respondents admitted that the

stipulated five years of operation and maintenance which the

petitioner was duty bound to perform is from 01.11.2018 to

31.10.2023. When this obligation of the petitioner as per the

respondents came to an end on 31.10.2023, and this writ petition

was filed on 07.03.2025, which is well within three years from that

date, the question of limitation does not even arise. The plea of

limitation also falls flat.

16. From what has been held above, it is clear that there is

no ground which can satisfy this Court to relegate the party to the

Civil Court. The fact that the work was completed by the petitioner

is admitted, that too, from conduct of the respondents it is clear

that the work was completed to the full satisfaction of the

respondents. It is also admitted that the amount under R.A. Bill

No.29 is due and so is the amount, which the petitioner is entitled

for operation and maintenance and the electricity bill.

17. The respondents have also taken a plea that the dispute

is arbitrable as per the contract and thus the petitioner should

invoke the relevant clause of Arbitration. In this context, it is

pertinent to mention that Arbitration is a Dispute Resolution

Mechanism. If there is a dispute, the same can be referred to

Arbitration. In this case, I find from the admitted facts that there

is no dispute itself. The respondents tried to create a dispute that

2026:JHHC:20891

20

too a very feeble one, without any factual backing or without any

documents to justify that the work was not satisfactory. This is the

only dispute which they tried to raise and the said dispute is

demolished by the pleadings of the respondents themselves and

also by their conduct. Thus, there is no such arbitrable dispute in

this case. Further, in view of the judgments which have been

discussed above, while deciding the issue of maintainability of the

writ petition in relation to money claim, I hold that, on facts, there

is no dispute at all.

18. The respondents admit that the petitioner’s obligation

of five years’ operation and maintenance was from 01.11.2018 to

31.10.2023 but the petitioner in para-20 has made a specific

positive assertion that even after completion of work, the handing

over of the project is pending till date. The petitioner however has

been forced to keep the contract alive, although there is no

extension of work order or agreement of operation and

maintenance for the last fifteen months and the petitioner is

working on the site and it is best known as to why the respondents

are not taking over the project. This specific assertion has not been

denied. The respondents in their counter affidavit, rather, in para-

15 admit that the project is ongoing and active under the existing

contractual agreement and the project has not reached its final

conclusion. This admission clearly suggests that the petitioner is

entitled for the monetary claim for sixteen months beyond the

operation and maintenance period, which came to an end on

31.10.2023.

2026:JHHC:20891

21

19. The amount due to the petitioner, which the petitioner

is claiming is mentioned at Annexure-11 of the petition, which is

on account of, running bill being R.A. Bill No.29, Balance payment

towards successfully completion of O & M work, quantum of which

has been mentioned at para-11 of this writ petition. The said

quantification has also not been denied by the respondents.

20. Considering what has been discussed and held above, I

am inclined to allow this writ petition. The respondents are

directed to immediately release the running bill being R.A. No.29,

in favour of the petitioner and further disburse the entire dues of

the petitioner with regard to operation and maintenance work. I

also hold that the respondents are liable to make payment to the

petitioner for the work of operation and maintenance for sixteen

months i.e. from 01.11.2023 till the date of filing of this writ

petition. The aforesaid amount which the petitioner is entitled to

receive, will carry a delayed payment interest @ 10% per annum

from the date it fell due till actual payment.

21. The amount should be disbursed to the petitioner within

sixty days, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ

petition stands allowed.

23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands

disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

15/07/2026

Prashant

A.F.R. Uploaded on 15.07.2026