Allowed¶34

Mojamil Haque v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2026WPC/2877/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mojamil Haque & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P (C) No. 2877 of 2021, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 09.07.2026 by Ananda Sen, J. Keywords: pond renovation; contractor dues; admitted measurement Rs. 1,70,600; MLA recommendation; work stopped on objection that tank was private; recovery of public money; village Committee; Gram Sabha; Deputy Commissioner Sahibganj; Letter No. 168 dated 12.12.2015; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 1,70,600/- by the State to the petitioner within three weeks; initiation of recovery proceedings against all persons who recommended/approved the renovation work, including members of the village Committee and the Gram Sabha; recovery to be concluded within six months and reported to this Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. ¶34

Mojamil Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to release/payment of the admitted amount spent by him on renovating the pond in question. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The work was allotted to the petitioner and it is admitted that the petitioner spent Rs. 1,70,600/-, which the petitioner is now entitled to receive.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Because of the irresponsible attitude and approach of the Government authorities, the petitioner, a petty private contractor, cannot be penalised nor denied payment of his due amount.

¶28

Key takeaways

The State is directed to pay Rs. 1,70,600/- to the petitioner immediately, within three weeks.ratio¶29
The State is directed to initiate a proceeding against all persons who had recommended and approved the renovation work, including the members of the village Committee and the Gram Sabha, to recover the amount, as taxpayers' money was spent on the contract.ratio¶29
The entire recovery process must be concluded within six months and thereafter reported to this Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P (C) No. 2877 of 2021, decided 09.07.2026, Ananda Sen, J.) — Renovation of private pond — Work awarded to petitioner-contractor on recommendation of MLA; work stopped after private respondents claimed ownership of the tank — State admitted in counter-affidavit that measured value of work done was Rs. 1,70,600/- — Held: petitioner entitled to payment; a petty private contractor cannot be penalised nor denied his dues for the irresponsible attitude of Government authorities — State directed to pay Rs. 1,70,600/- within three weeks and to initiate proceedings against all persons who recommended/approved the work, including village Committee and Gram Sabha members, to recover the public money spent on the private pond; recovery to conclude within six months and be reported to the Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj — Writ petition allowed.

¶1

(2026:JHHC:20343 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 2877 of 2021

¶3

¶4

Mojamil Haque, aged about 40 years, Son of Noor Islam.

¶5

Bani Israil, aged about 38 years, Son of Md. Illyas, Both are resident of Village-Palasbona, P.O.-Palasbona, P.S.Barharwa, Dist.-Sahibganj. … Petitioners(s).

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S.-Sahibganj, Dist. Sahibganj.

¶10

The Land Conservation Officer, Sahibganj, Office at District Agriculture Office Campus, Kisan Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.Sahibganj, Dist.-Sahibganj

¶11

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibjanj, P.O. &. P.S.-Sahibganj, Dist.-Sahibganj.

¶12

The Circle Officer, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S.-Barharwa, Dist.Sahibganj.

¶13

Abdul Gafur, Son of Late Muslim Sheikh, Resident of VillagePalasbona, P.O.-Palasbona, P.S.-Barharwa, Dist.-Sahibganj.

¶14

… Respondent(s).

¶15

CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioners(s) : Md. Asadul Haque, Advocate For the respondent(s) :Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I

¶18

02/09.07.2026:

¶19

Heard the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is giving up his prayer no. 2. He is pressing the prayer no. 1 which is for the release of the admitted amount which the petitioner has spent for renovating the pond in question.

¶21

From the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, the fact which is admitted is that work was to renovate the pond in question which was awarded to the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

(2026:JHHC:20343 )

¶24

It was on the recommendation of MLA which is evident from the counter-affidavit. The work order was also issued to the petitioner for renovation and the petitioner has done some work. In the meantime, private respondents objected on the ground that the tank belong to them and petitioner was stopped from making any further renovation work.

¶25

In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit, the State has admitted that they have measured the work and found that the cost of work done was Rs. 1,70,600/-. They also states that the President and Secretary of the Committee became adamant. Further in paragraph 19, it has been mentioned that the C.O, Braharwa informed the D.C. Sahibganj that the land is private in nature and thus, the renovation work of the said pond was stopped vide Letter No. 168 dated 12.12.2015, and, thereafter, the measurement was done.

¶26

From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the work was allotted to the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner has spent Rs. 1,70,600/- which the petitioner is now entitled to. The State also in their counter-affidavit admitted that the work was recommended by the concerned MLA, Shri Alamgir Alam of Barharwa Block.

¶27

The fact that the pond belongs to a private person, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the respondents State authorities had spent Government money for renovating the private pond at the instance of some of the local villagers including the MLA. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has done work to the tune of Rs. 1,70,600.

¶28

Because of this irresponsible attitude and approach of the Govt. authorities, the petitioner, who is a petty private contractor cannot be penalised, nor payment of his due amount can be denied.

¶29

Thus, I direct the State to pay the amount of Rs. 1,70,600/- to the petitioner immediately within three weeks and initiate a proceeding against all persons who had recommended and approved renovation of the work, including the members of the village Committee and the Gram Sabha for recovering the said amount from them as the tax payers amount has been spent in this contract. The entire process of

(2026:JHHC:20343 )

09.07.2026 Rashmi/-

recovery should be concluded within six months and, thereafter, be reported to this Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj.

¶34

9. This writ petition stands allowed.

¶35

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶36