Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Private Limited Rep. through Its Authorized Signatory Kumar Vikram Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:9273-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1186 of 2025

Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Private Limited (Earlier known as M/s Sorathia Velji Ratna & Company) having its Registered Office at A-401, Kalpvrux Complex, Near TB Hospital, Gotri Road, PO- Vadodra, PSVadodra, District- Vadodra, Gujarat represented through its “Contractor” Kumar Vikram, aged about 39 years’ son of Upendra Kumar Singh, resident of Green View Heights Flat, 6006 Diwakar Nagar, PO & PS- Bariatu, District Ranchi , Jharkhand … … … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Mr. Binay Kumar Roy, son of not known to the petitioner, the Project Director (Technical), JUIDCO Ltd., having its office at 3^rd Floor Pragati Sadan, Kuchary Chowk, PO-GPO, PS- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶9

Mr. Keethishree G, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, PO & PS- Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand … … … Opp. Parties

¶10

---------

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶12

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (though VC) Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Shreyash Mishra, AC to AG For the JUIDCO : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ----------

¶13

Order No. 05 / Dated 1^st April, 2026

¶14

The instant contempt petition has been filed against the opposite parties for the alleged willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3929 of 2023.

¶15

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the reasoned order although has been passed in pursuance to the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3929 of 2023 and it has been submitted that the rest of the amount to the tune of Rs. 5,35,45,975/- has not yet been released due to want of fund. However, it has been stated in the reasoned order that immediately the fund will be received from the DMFT, the said amount will be released.

¶16

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since no fund was released from the DMFT, Chatra and as such, this Court has

¶17

1

¶18

2026:JHHC:9273-DB

¶19

impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra as one of the opposite parties vide order dated 09.02.2026.

¶20

He has further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has filed show cause on 30.03.2026, wherein it has been stated that the entire work, as per the administrative approval, has not been completed and as such, the fund, as has been asked to be released from the DMFT, to the tune of Rs. 5,35,45,975/-, while passing the reasoned order, cannot be released.

¶21

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the work has already been completed and remaining work, which is being now, said to be not completed, is not due to be the fault of petitioner, rather, due to the fault lies on the part of the opposite parties, particularly, the JUIDCO, respondent no.2 herein.

¶22

It has been submitted that the petitioner is still ready to complete the work as per the administrative approval, but the infrastructure is not being supplied and due to that, the work in entirety, has not been completed, and as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. 7. This Court, considering the aforesaid submission, has called upon the Project Director, JUIDCO to understand the situation. 8. Ms. Keerthishree G, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra is also present. 9. The matter has been deferred to be heard at 12.45p.m. 10. Mr. Binay Kumar Roy, at present holding the post of Project Director (Technical), JUIDCO Ltd., is present.

¶23

He has stated that as per the administrative approval, which has been granted for execution of work in question, earlier the Water is to be taken from the Baksha, Check Dam-situated at the distance of 15-20 Kilometers from the place of the execution of the work, so that the water be taken from that Dam and supply to the respective houses in the area. The said Baksha Dam is under the control of the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, but subsequently Drinking Water and Sanitation Department has refused to share the water from the said Dam. Now, the Government is thinking to have the source of water from the Tilaya Dam and the Government is looking into these issues. The expected time for taking such decision is at least three months.

¶24

This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the Project Director, Technical, JUIDCO and also after hearing Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:9273-DB

¶27

petitioner, is of the view that in such a situation the scope of present case cannot be enhanced by issuing further direction as per the statement made by the Project Director, Technical, JUIDCO.

¶28

Further, from the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3929 of 2023, it is evident from paragraph-3, that it contains the direction upon the Respondent no.3 (Respondent No.2 herein) to take decision and accordingly, decision has been taken.

¶29

Further, the reasoned order has been passed admitting the grievance but no disbursement of the said amount.

¶30

There cannot be further direction in the instant contempt proceeding in view of the stand of authorities/respondents as referred above.

¶31

The part of the amount has already been paid, and as such, this Court is of the view that the contempt proceeding is to be closed; and disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievance.

¶32

The physical appearance of the concerned officers is dispensed with.

¶33

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶34

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

¶35

Date : 1^st April, 2026 Kamlesh/ Nishant/-

¶36

3

Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Private Limited Rep. through Its Authorized Signatory Kumar Vikram v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velji Ratna Sorathia Infra Private Limited Rep. through Its Authorized Signatory Kumar Vikram 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanicharwa Manjhi @ Mangla Manjhi Vs Atwari Devi

Union of India through Secretary, Department of Post Vs Ram Sewak Mahto

Zeshaan Shekh Alias Ricky Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Sri Ajay Kumar Vs Smt Kiran

Vikki Kumar @ Vicky Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secy, Dept of Home, Prison and Disaster Management