Disposed¶27

Pramod Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2024WPC/1864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Character certificate for contractors seeking to file State of Jharkhand tenders; registered contractors / M/s Dev Construction; application before Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga undecided; competent secretary of concerned department as issuing authority; reliance on Manyata Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 10 SCC 198 para 10; writ disposed of with direction to approach appropriate authority for decision in accordance with law; pending I.A. disposed of. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; decision date 06/08/2024; W.P.(C) No. 1864 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

No substantive mandamus issued; petitioners directed to file application before the appropriate authority for the character certificate, and the concerned authority to take a decision in accordance with law; pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. ¶27

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1864 of 2024

¶2

Pramod Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Lal Mukul Nath Sahdeo

¶3

Niraj Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Lal Mukul Nath Sahdeo, Both are residents of At and P.O. and P.O. and P.S.-Kisko, DistrictLohardaga, Jharkhand

¶4

…………petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, office at D.C. Office, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. and District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, office at SP Office, Lohardaga, P.O. P.S. and District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand

¶9

In-Charge of Kisko Police Station, Lohardaga, Office at Kisko, P.O. and P.S. Kisko, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand.

¶10

---------

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

---------

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.K. Shahi, Advocate

¶14

04/Dated: 06/08/2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the

¶16

State.

¶17

Prayer in this writ petition is made for direction upon the respondents

¶18

to issue character certificate of the petitioners for filing tender issued by the State

¶19

of Jharkhand.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are registered contractors of departments of State of Jharkhand and they have one M/s Dev Construction Partnership firm and they have done several work in the name of M/s Dev Construction and have got experience certificate for their work. He further submits that the petitioners have filed application before the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga for issuance of character certificate however till date no order has been passed. He then submits that the competent secretary of the

¶21

concerned department is entitled to issue character certificate in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Manyata Devi V.

¶22

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others’ (2015) 10 SCC 198 . He refers to para 10

¶23

of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶24

“10. There is no quarrel with the proposition that registration can be a insisted upon by the State Government or its departments for purposes of allotment of works and participation in auctions relating thereto. There is also no difficulty in the State providing for production of a character certificate as one of the conditions of eligibility. Experience of the contractor, if considered relevant for the purposes of such registration, could also be stipulated as one of the requirements to be satisfied by the applicants under the Rules or Regulations. That such regulations ought to ensure participation of only genuine contractors and prevent the mafia from hijacking the system cannot also be faulted. The question, however, is whether that purpose which is indeed laudable could be achieved by a side-wind viz. by the District Magistrate denying a character certificate to an applicant. Our answer is in the negative. We say so because the very fact that a character certificate is issued does not mean that everyone who has such a certificate gets a vested right to be registered as a contractor. The District Magistrate did not have any authority under the rules stipulating registration of contractors to consider such requests for registration or to grant or refuse the same. It is the competent authority in the Irrigation Department concerned who has to take a call. Inasmuch as the District Magistrate took upon himself the duty of examining whether the appellant was suitable for registration, he went beyond the legitimate sphere of the jurisdiction vested in him which was limited to considering the request for issuance of a character certificate.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the Secretary

¶26

of the concerned department has not been made party in the present writ petition however, only Deputy Commissioner has been made party before whom the petitioners have filed petition for issuance of character certificate.

¶27

In view of above this petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file application before the appropriate authority with regard to said prayer and if such application is filed the concerned authority will take a decision in accordance with law.

¶28

Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

Satyarthi/

Pramod Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urmila Pandey Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

M/S Trust Diagnostic Centre through Its Proprietor Sri Jatin Sahay Vs Bank of India through Its General Manager

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs the Union of India through South Eastern Raiwlay

Jamuna Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Masaat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indian Bank Represented Thro Its Chief Manager Mr Suresh Chandra Chauhan Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Ranchi Represented Thro Its Registrar