M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. (Plant- v), Thro Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik, Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 7544 of 2025

M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents With W.P (T) No. 1628 of 2025 M/s Multitech Auto Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents With W.P (T) No. 1647 of 2025 M/s Multitech Auto Private Limited Unit-II ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents With W.P (T) No. 1663 of 2025 M/s Ramkrishna Forgings Limited (Plant V) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents With W.P (T) No. 1665 of 2025 M/s Ramkrishna Forgings Limited (Plant V) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents With W.P (T) No. 1825 of 2025 M/s Mal Metalliks Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others ----- Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶3

¶4

For the Petitioner: Mr Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C to A.A.G-III

¶5

Mr Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C to Sr. S.C-1 ----

¶6

03/Dated: 05.05.2026

¶7

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

All these matters were disposed of by order dated 06.01.2026 except W.P (T) No. 7544 of 2025 which was disposed of on 23.12.2025. By

¶9

2.

¶10

the above orders, the High Powered Committee (HPC) was directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event, by 31^st of January, 2026 / 15^th of February, 2026. The matter was posted for compliance on 22^nd of February, 2026 in the fond hope that the HPC would comply with the directions issued.

¶11

The HPC has breached the directions and not even bothered to apply for any extension of time. Now, the communication dated 30^th of April, 2026 has been addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, purporting to report compliance. Firstly, this is not the mode of reporting compliance. The HPC should have filed an affidavit of compliance. Thus, the HPC in this case, neither bothered to seek any extension of time, nor has bothered to file any compliance report.

¶12

Even if the above lapses are to be ignored, we find that the HPC had not at all taken any decision in the matter, but just directed the Directorate of Industries to examine the petitioners’ claims as per the SOP issued by the Commercial Taxes Department in coordination with the Commercial Taxes Department. This is simply passing the buck and avoiding a decision, though the directions of this Court were explicit that the HPC should take a decision.

¶13

Mr Akhtar however submits that the HPC will take a decision in the matter but has sought assistance of the Directorate of Industries to examine all claims because such examination requires some factual determination which could be best undertaken by the Directorate of Industries. Assuming that this is so, we extend the timeline for the

¶14

3.

¶15

HPC to take and communicate its decision by a period of 30 days from today.

¶16

If within the extended period, the HPC fails to take and communicate the decision, as directed by us in our above referred orders, we will be constrained to consider whether any action under the Contempt of Courts Act should be initiated against the Members of the HPC for not complying with our directions and further for trying to find out the ways and means to avoid compliance.

¶17

In this case, though our directions had to be complied with by 15^th of February, 2026, even the communication seeking additional documents from the original petitioner were addressed only in the month of April, 2026. All this, it is prima facie, appears to be some ground work not to comply with our directions and try to apportion blame on the petitioner.

¶18

The compliance report as filed cannot be accepted. However, now that the above extension is granted, we direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand who is the Chairperson of the HPC to file an affidavit for reporting compliance. The Chief Secretary should not delegate this requirement of filing of an affidavit to any other officer. Such an affidavit must be filed and served by 12^th of June, 2026.

¶19

Place this matter on 16^th of June, 2026 to consider the affidavit of compliance.

¶20

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

¶21

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶22

May 05, 2026 Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.1

M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. (Plant- v), Thro Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik, v. the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ramkrishna Forgings Ltd. (Plant- v), Thro Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik, v. the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Narayani Fuels Private Limited through Its Director Shri Satyabrat Sahay Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Finance Department

Ms Bmc Ferrocast Private Limited through Its Director and Authorised Signatory Mr Deepak Dokania Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Bmc Metalcast Private Limited through Its Director and Authorised Signatory Mr Deepak Dokania Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Mal Metalliks Private Limited, through Its Authorized Signatory, Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik, Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

M/S Multitech Auto Private Limited, through Its Authorized Signatory Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary

M/S Multitech Auto Pvt. Ltd. Unit - Ii, through Its Authorized Signatory Namely, Dinesh Kumar Parik Vs the State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Secretary