MS ANAND ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ANAND MAHTO vs JHARKHAND URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5365 of 2021
------
M/s. Anand Enterprises, proprietor concern having its office at Jaina
More Site, P.O. & P.S. Jaina More, District Bokaro, Jharkhand,
through its proprietor Anand Mahto, son of Jyoti Ram Mahto,
resident of Village Bandhdih, P.O. & P.S. Jaina More, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand. … … Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing
Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Chief Engineer-cum-General Manager, Electricity Supply Area,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Combined Building,
P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad.
4. The Director Finance (F&A), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,
having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. The Manager (F&A), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through
its Managing Director, having its office at JUVNL Office, HEC
Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
6. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Circle,
Chas, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., P.O. & P.S. Chas,
District Bokaro.
7. Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division
Tenughat, under Electricity Supply Division Tenughat,
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., having its office at P.O. & P.S.
Tenughat, District Bokaro.
… … Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar, SC
------
07/ 02.09.2026
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:-
“(A) For a direction upon the Respondents to
pay the admitted dues of the Petitioner in
terms of Work Order No. 08/RE/CE/RE/298
/12-13 dated 31.01.2013 and Agreement
1
2026:JHHC:26633
dated 21.02.2013 entered into between the
Respondent No.3 and the Petitioner, which
as per the calculation arrived at by the
Petitioner comes to Rs.83,37,343/-
(Rupees Eighty Three Lacs Thirty Seven
Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Three)
inclusive of interest as on September,
2021.
(B) For a direction upon the Respondents to
show cause as to under what circumstances
the bill raised by the Petitioner in
accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Work Order dated 31.01.2013 and
Agreement between the parties have not
been honoured till date inspite of the fact
that the same has already been processed
and approved by the concerned Accounts
Department of the Respondent No.2.
(C) For a direction upon the Respondent to
make payment of the illegally held-up
amount of the Petitioner under various bills
raised by him at the earliest along with the
interest component as agreed between the
parties.”
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board (JSEB), vide Work
Order No.08/RE/CE/RE/298/12-13 dated 31.01.2013, awarded
work of “Collection Based Rural Distribution Franchisee in JSEB for
Phusro Electricity Supply Sub-Division, as per NIT Specification
No.598/PR/JSEB/12-13, to the petitioner-Firm. Accordingly, an
Agreement was arrived at between the respondents and the
petitioner-Firm. The work contract was also extended thereafter
2
2026:JHHC:26633
from time to time.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner-Firm that the bill
raised for payment of dues, which according to the petitioner-Firm
are admitted, pursuant to the aforesaid work, has not yet been
disbursed to the petitioner-Firm.
5. On the query made in respect of admission on part of
the respondents that the dues are admitted, learned counsel
representing the petitioner – Firm submits that the respondents
themselves sanctioned the bill to the tune of 38,96,119/- but due to
audit objection the payment could not have been made. To buttress
his submission, he referred to para-5 and para-29 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7. Learned Counsel
also referred to the orders and judgment passed by the Single Bench
as well as the Division Bench of this Court, reported in (2023) SCC
OnLine Jhar 1813 [Ramesh Dutt Pathak Vs. State of
Jharkhand], 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1030 [Jharkhand Urga
Utpadan Nigam Limited through its Chairman & Ors. Vs.
South West Pinnacle Exploration Pvt. Limited & Ors.], 2025
SCC OnLine Jhar 3117 [Ajmani Infrastructure and Projects
Private Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and
2026:JHHC:20891 [W.P.(C) No.1563 of 2025] [M/s Eagle
Infra India Limited Vs. Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure
Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) & Anr.] .
6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits
that the petitioner has raised the bill to the tune of 38,96,119/- and
the same was sanctioned but due to audit objection raised by the
3
2026:JHHC:26633
CAG, payment could not be made. The CAG has pointed out that the
compensation O&M expenses were not as per the slab of agreement
and incentives were also given for the month in which there was
decrease in collection in revenue for the current month compared to
corresponding month for the base year as an excess payment of
compensation amount and incentives to tune of Rs. 1.35 lakh among
four companies were involved out of which Rs. 26.83 lakh was
related with M/s Anand Enterprises i.e. the petitioner. He further
submits that the withheld amount will be released after submission
of the required documents by the petitioner.
7. After hearing the parties and going through the records,
I find that there is an audit objection of CAG. The petitioner-Firm
has also not challenged the audit report. Thus, for the release of the
dues, the petitioner-Firm has to satisfy the respondents for
redressal of grievance, either by filing objection to the audit report
of CAG, or by furnishing relevant documents.
8. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to exercise
my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it
cannot be said that the dues are admitted.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .
10. The petitioner – Company is at liberty to file suit for
payment of dues before competent Civil Court.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
nd
02 September, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2
Uploaded on 07.09.2026
4