[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S K. D. Infraengicon Private Limited ... vs The Secretary on 4 February, 2026
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2026:JHHC:2883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.625 of 2026
M/s K. D. Infraengicon Private Limited having its head
office at 110-B Block, Dhatkidhi, Bishtupur, Jamshedpur,
P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, District East Singhbhum through its
Director Manzar Imam Khan, aged about 64 years, S/O
Md. Quiyamuddin Khan, Resident of H. No. 110, Block,
Line No. 10, Dhatkidih, Behind Community Centre,
Jamshedpur, P.O & P.S Bistupur, District East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary, Department of Road Construction,
Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Chief Engineer, Department of Road
Construction, NH Division, Project Bhawan, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Executive Engineer, Department of Road
Construction, NH Division, Gumla, P.O., P.S. &
District Gumla, Jharkhand
4. The Dispute Review Expert CE (NH), Road
Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Director General (Road Development) &
special Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport &
Highways, Government of India, Transport Bhawan,
I, Parliament Street, P.O & P.S Connaught Place,
District New Delhi, Delhi.
6. The Executive Engineer, Road Development &
special Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport &
Highways, Government of India, Transport Bhawan,
I, Parliament Street, P.O & P.S Connaught Place,
District New Delhi, Delhi. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. M. K. Dubey, AC to AG
--------
th
02/Dated: 04 February, 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :-
"(a) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/
2026:JHHC:2883
order(s)/ direction(s) nature of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents especially
respondent no.5 to show cause as to how and under
circumstances the concerned respondent has not
accorded approval for letter contained in memo no.
CE/NH/Misc-85/17 dated 10.09.2017 (Annexure-9) in
spite of the fact that the decision has already been
taken by Dispute Review Expert vide order dated
29.11.2016 (Annexure-7).
(b) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) nature of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents especially
respondent no.5 to grant approval to letter contained
in memo no.CE/NH/Misc-85/17 dated 10.09.2017
(Annexure-9) whereby and whereunder the Dispute
Review Expert had after hearing the parties had
allowed 2 claims out of total 11 claims and was
further pleased to submit proposal to respondent no.
5 for approval of revised cost estimate for overall
work value including price adjustment to the tune of
Rs.1317.625 lakhs vide letter contained in memo
no.CE/NH/Misc-85/17 dated 10.09.2017 (Annexure-
9).
(c) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/
order(s)/ direction(s) nature of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to pay interest on
delayed payment as it has categorically been held by
the dispute review expert in claim no.10 that the
delay is not attributable to the contractor"
3. Earlier also, there was litigation and for which a writ
petition being W.P.(C) No.2416 of 2009 was filed. The order
dated 19.04.2024, passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 412 of
2017, arising out of the said writ petition, is quoted herein-
below :-
"The present contempt petition has been filed for
initiating a contempt proceeding against the
contemnors/opposite parties alleging wilful disobedience
of order dated 23.09.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2416 of
2009.
2026:JHHC:2883
2. Mrs. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II appearing on behalf of
the opposite party no. 2, submits that on 15.02.2024, she
inadvertently could not point out to the Court that the
opposite party no.2 had already decided the dispute on
29.11.2016 (part of Annexure-D to the show cause
affidavit dated 12.04.2023 filed on behalf of the said
opposite party).
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the decision of the opposite party no.2 taken
on 29.11.2016 (part of Annexure-D to the show cause
affidavit dated 12.04.2023), this Court is of the view that
no case of contempt is made out against the opposite
party no. 2. The contempt proceeding as against the
opposite party no. 2 is hereby dropped.
4. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of."
4. Thus, the cause of action has arisen in the year 2016
itself. The limitation for any commercial transaction is of
three years.
5. Thus, the present claim of the petitioner is hopelessly
barred by the law of limitation.
6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain
the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby,
dismissed.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
04th February, 2026
Ravi-Chandan/-
Uploaded on 05.02.2026
