Disposed¶22

Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited, through Its Director, Shivlal Mahto v. Coal India Ltd., through Its Chief Managing Director

Jharkhand HC28 Jan 2026WPC/156/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi; W.P.(C) No.156 of 2026; 2026:JHHC:2121-DB; Article 12 Constitution of India; Article 226 writ jurisdiction; private entities not State; sub-contractor dispute with M/s. Krishna Infrastructure; Coal India Ltd.; Central Coalfields Limited; disputed questions of fact; maintainability of writ against private parties; withdrawal with liberty to approach appropriate forum; contentions left open; no costs; Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited; M. S. Sonak C.J.; Rajesh Shankar J.; disposed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum for resolution of the petitioner's disputes; contentions left open; no costs. ¶22

Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited, through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum for resolution of the petitioner's disputes; contentions left open; no costs.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether a dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent, both private entities not answering the definition of State under Article 12, can be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶20

Court's answer

Both the petitioner and the 6th respondent are private entities that do not answer the definition of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent cannot be adjudicated by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Key takeaways

Resolution of the dispute would in any event involve adjudication into disputed questions of fact, which is unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.ratio¶20
The contentions of all the parties on the merits and demerits of the dispute are left open, as the Court has not examined or adjudicated upon them.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand, W.P.(C) No.156 of 2026 (2026:JHHC:2121-DB), Order No.02 dated 28.01.2026 (M. S. Sonak, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.): The petitioner, a sub-contractor of the 6th respondent, filed a writ petition against Coal India Ltd., Central Coalfields Limited and its officers, and M/s. Krishna Infrastructure. The Court held that both the petitioner and the 6th respondent are private entities that do not answer the definition of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India; the inter-se dispute between them cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and its resolution would in any event involve disputed questions of fact. On counsel's instruction, leave was granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum; contentions on merits were left open; no costs.

¶1

2026:JHHC:2121-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.156 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited, having its registered office at Babugaon Road, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Korra, District Hazaribagh through its Director, Shivlal Mahto, son of Late Bigan Mahto, resident of Babugoan Road, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Korra, District-Hazaribagh.

¶5

.......... Petitioner.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Coal India Ltd., through its Chief Managing Director, having its registered office at Coal Bhawan Premise No.04 MAR, Plot No.AF-III. Action Area-1A. Newton, P.O. & P.S. Rajarhart, District Kolkata.

¶8

Central Coalfields Limited, (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited), represented by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, P.O. & P.S. Kutchery Road, District-Ranchi.

¶9

The General Manager (CMC), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi.

¶10

The General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, P.O. Kuju, P.S. Ghato, District-Ramgarh.

¶11

Project Officer, Sarubera West OCP (Sarubera Project), Central Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, P.O. Kuju, P.S. Ghato, DistrictRamgarh.

¶12

M/s. Krishna Infrastructure, a partnership firm having its registered office at 101104, Panchvati Point Complex, Opposite Mansrovar Building, PN Marg, P.O. and P.S. Jamnagar, District Jamnagar, State-Gujarat, represented through its partner Mr. Karshanbhai Devabhai Karmur, resident of 101104, Panchvati Point Complex, Opposite Mansrovar Building, PN Marg, P.O. and P.S. Jamnagar, District Jamnagar, State-Gujarat.

¶13

.......... Respondents.

¶14

----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶15

----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Niharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the CCL : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate -----

¶16

Order No.02 Date: 28.01.2026

¶17

The petitioner is a sub-contractor of 6^th respondent. Both the petitioner and the 6^th respondent are private entities that they do not answer the definition of the State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of the India.

¶18

¶19

2026:JHHC:2121-DB

¶20

The dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent. Such dispute, cannot be adjudicated by us in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. Even otherwise, resolution of such a dispute would involve adjudication into disputed questions of fact.

¶21

Upon this being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum for resolution of the petitioner’s disputes.

¶22

We think that it would be a proper course of action to adopt. Accordingly, leave is granted and this petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶23

The contentions of all the parties on merits and demerits of dispute are left open because we have not examined or adjudicated upon.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

¶26

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶27

28^th January, 2026 Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 30.01.2026

¶28

Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited, through Its Director, Shivlal Mahto v. Coal India Ltd., through Its Chief Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Yashi Construction Private Limited, through Its Director, Shivlal Mahto v. Coal India Ltd., through Its Chief Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vision Hospitality Services and Consultants Private Limited, Vs the Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited through Its Managing Director

Lalchand Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand Rakshak Morcha through Its Central Chairman Chandrakant Kumar Khuswaha Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

M/S Jai Maa Tara Projects, Rep. through Its Partner Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain Vs Central Coalfields Limited (Ccl) through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director

Mrinal Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand Thro the Chief Secretary, Dept. of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa

Anubhav Kumar Maldahiyar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary