Petitioner sought refund of security deposit deducted from construction bills. Court directed petitioner to file fresh representation before Respondent No.3 for consideration. No merit decided.
Liberty to file fresh representation before Respondent No.3; Respondent No.3 to decide within one month after hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2794 of 2021
Rakesh Kumar Pandey .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
.......... Respondents.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to G.P.II -----
Order No.04 Date: 06.01.2022
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release/refund the security deposit in question along with suitable interest in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executive Engineer, South Chhotanagpur Division, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Namkum, Ranchi executed an agreement with the petitioner being Agreement no.SBD/Agreement No.07/2013-14 dated 21st May, 2013 having work value of Rs.26,70,783/- for construction of Health Sub Centre at Purio, Ratu, Ranchi. The petitioner executed the said work to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities and was paid full amount after submission of the final bill, however, an amount of Rs.1,94,372/-, being the total amount of security deposit, which was deducted from six running bills of the petitioner @ 8% of the agreement value, is still to be refunded by the department to the petitioner for which he represented the respondent nos.4 and 5 repeatedly, however, the same were not responded. Lastly vide letter no.1152 dated 25th April, 2018, the respondent no.3 requested the respondent no.5 to send few files involving cost of the schemes less than Rs.50.00 lacs including measurement book relating to the petitioner’s work (mentioned at sl. No.4 in the said letter). Thereafter, nothing has been done by the
-2-
respondents in this regard, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition before this Court.
Mr. Bipin Chandra, learned A.C. to G.P.II, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.3, it will be duly considered by the said respondent within a time frame.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the writ petition, without entering into merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent no.3. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall take an appropriate informed decision within one month from the date of filing of the same.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to security deposit refund or has a locus standi to seek its release.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of on merits or an alternate remedy should be provided.
Whether the department is under an obligation to refund the security deposit with interest.
Rakesh Kumar Pandey
The State of Jharkhand
Secretary, Building Construction Department
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department
Building Construction Corporation Limited
Executive Engineer-cum-Manager, Building Construction Corporation Limited
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
