Disposed¶26

Anikul Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2026WPC/2571/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anikul Alam v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 2571 of 2021, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sri Ananda Sen, J.), decided 13-07-2026. Contractor's claim for admitted dues of Rs. 5,00,000/- per measurement book under National Health Mission/building construction work in Pakur; Court found total payment of Rs. 32,65,046.00 made against agreement value of Rs. 33,61,694.00, balance not an admitted due; petition disposed of with liberty to approach respondent-Authorities and, if disputed, the competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Authorities claiming the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-; if the respondents dispute the same, liberty to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. ¶26

Anikul Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:JHHC:20653

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2571 of 2021

¶3

Anikul Alam, son of Jullu Rahman, resident of Village-Jamshedpur, P.O.Kistongar, P.S.-Pakur (M), Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The commission Director, National Health Mission (NRHM), Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, Dist.-Ranchi

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Department of Building Construction, Building Division, Pakur

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur

¶11

The Circle Officer, Pakur . … Respondent(s)

¶12

¶13

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶14

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate For the State: Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

¶15

¶16

11/13.07.2026 Heard the parties.

¶17

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the admitted dues to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received rupees Twenty Seven Lakh and odd. He further submits that out of remaining rupees ten lakh, the petitioner has only received Rs. 5,60,274/-. Thus, there is dues of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the measurement book.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has referred to para-8 to 11 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 15.06.2026, which are as follows.:-

¶20

“8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the 1^st Bill having an amount of amount of Rs. 22,39,879.00 had been paid to the petitioner (contractor) on 26.02.2022.

¶21

9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the 2^nd Bill having an amount of Rs. 10,25,167.00 had been paid to the petitioner (contractor) on 21.01.2023.

¶22

10. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the grand total amount of Rs. 3265046.00 have already been paid to the contractor.

¶23

11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the agreement value of the work is Rs. 33,61,694.00. Against the work, final payment of Rs. 32,65,046.00 have been paid to the contractor on 21.01.2023 as per final measurement in measurement Book. There is no dues against the work .”

¶24

Considering the said submission, I find that admitted dues have

¶25

already been paid to the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is not the admitted dues amount.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid fact, this writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent-Authorities claiming the balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 7. If the respondents dispute the same it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶27

13^th July, 2026 Anu/SKC-CP02 Uploaded on 14/07/2026

¶28

Page-02

Anikul Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anikul Alam 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

Anita Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bitu Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Church of North India, Lohardaga, through Its Presbyter, Anil Kumar Dahanga Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjani Kumar Singh Vs the Uco Bank, through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Chandra Kumar Mishra Vs the Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Jageshwar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand