[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Anvil Energy Private Limited (Formerly ... vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited on 17 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1601 of 2026
-----
Anvil Energy Private Limited (formerly known as Anvil Cables
Private Limited), having its registered office at 102, Krishna, 224
A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700017, through its Authorized
Signatory, Mr. Jay Prakash Mishra, son of Birendra Kumar Mishra,
resident of F3-25C/1 New Haujpur Link Road, P.O. Maheshtala, P.S.
Haujpur, District Kolkata-700141.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, JBVNL,
Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa-822124.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Private Limited, having its
registered office at 30/B Vengal Rao Nagar, P.O. & P.S. S. R. Nagar,
District Hyderabad-500038, through its Authorized Signatory-cum-
Manager (Accounts), Mr. Shamshad Ali, son of Late Md. Shafiullah,
resident of Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
District Ranchi-834001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa-822114.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Private Limited, having its
registered office at 30/B Vengal Rao Nagar, P.O. & P.S. S. R. Nagar,
District Hyderabad-500038, through its Authorized Signatory-cum-
Manager (Accounts), Mr. Shamshad Ali, son of Late Md. Shafiullah,
resident of Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
District Ranchi-834001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar-814112.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Private Limited, having its
registered office at 30/B Vengal Rao Nagar, P.O. & P.S. S. R. Nagar,
District Hyderabad-500038, through its Authorized Signatory-cum-
Manager (Accounts), Mr. Shamshad Ali, son of Late Md. Shafiullah,
resident of Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
District Ranchi-834001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar-814112.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
M/s. Anvil Cables Private Limited, having its registered office at 102,
Krishna, 224 A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700017, through its
Assistant Manager-cum-Authorized Signatory, Mr. Jay Prakash
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
Mishra, son of Birendra Kumar Mishra, resident of F3-25C/1 New
Haujpur Link Road, P.O. Maheshtala, P.S. Haujpur, District Kolkata-
700141.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Rannchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar-814112.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Private Limited, having its
registered office at 30/B Vengal Rao Nagar, P.O. & P.S. S. R. Nagar,
District Hyderabad-500038, through its Authorized Signatory-cum-
Manager (Accounts), Mr. Shamshad Ali, son of Late Md. Shafiullah,
resident of Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
District Ranchi-834001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle,
Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. &
District Garhwa-822114.
.......... Respondents.
-----
With
-----
M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Private Limited, having its
registered office at 30/B Vengal Rao Nagar, P.O. & P.S. S. R. Nagar,
District Hyderabad-500038, through its Authorized Signatory-cum-
Manager (Accounts), Mr. Shamshad Ali, son of Late Md. Shafiullah,
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
resident of Raza Colony, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
District Ranchi-834001.
.......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, having its office at Engineering Building,
HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834002.
2. General Manager (RP), Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited,
having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834002.
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Electrification, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, HEC, Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834002.
4. Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, JBVNL,
Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa-822114.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. M. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Raj, Advocate
-----
Order No.02 Date: 17.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that these writ petitions can
be disposed of by a common order. They point out that the material
facts in all these writ petitions are substantially same, though the
actual quantities or amounts involved may differ. Accordingly, we
propose to dispose of these writ petitions by a common order by
treating W.P.(C) No.1601 of 2026 as the lead case.
3. The petitioner seeks an appropriate writ upon the respondents for
quashing and setting aside the letters issued by the respondents
directing the deduction of certain amounts on account of highly
quoted items.
4. The petitioner argues that such deduction was inconsistent with and
in fact contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties.
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
The petitioner has urged that such deduction was made despite the
fact that the variation in contract price due to change in quantity
was within the prescribed limits and further, the same, was at the
instance of the respondents themselves.
5. Based on the above contention, the petitioner, seeks a writ of
mandamus upon the respondents to refund the deducted amount of
Rs.1,26,17,214.70/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum because according to the petitioner, such deduction was
unilateral, illegal and in violation of the terms of the contract.
6. The issue raised in these petitions is almost identical to the issue
involved in W.P.(C) Nos.5303, 6007 and 2583 of 2025 which were
disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 22nd January,
2026. There, this Court noted that the dispute, similar to the dispute
raised in these Petitions, was a purely contractual dispute and any
resolution of such dispute would involve adjudication into highly
disputed question of facts with regard to excess quantities, if any,
the rates that would apply to such excess quantities, whether the
variation was within the permissible limits or not and which of the
parties was indeed responsible for the variation.
7. In some of these petitions, the respondents have filed returns
disputing the petitioners' claims and raising serious factual disputes.
The returns also point out that the petitioners have an alternative
remedy of resorting to arbitration under the agreement/contract
between the parties.
8. The resolution of the above-referred disputes would undoubtedly
involve adjudication into highly disputed questions of fact. Such an
exercise cannot be ordinarily undertaken when exercising the
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This is especially so when at least some of the
Petitioners have undisputedly agreed to resort to arbitration to
resolve such disputes.
9. Mr Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that
arbitration clauses are to be found in the agreements which are the
subject matter of the W.P.(C) Nos. 416, 1105 and 1315 of 2026. He
submitted that, in the agreements that are the subject matter of the
remaining petitions, there is no arbitration clause.
10. The presence or absence of an arbitration clause is not crucial. The
crucial issue is that the disputes raised in all these petitions arise
from allegations and counter-allegations of breaches of the contract
between the parties. Further, any resolution of such disputes would
involve adjudication into highly disputed questions of fact, some of
which are referred to hereinabove.
11. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to attempt to resolve such
disputes in our summary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so in cases where the
parties have themselves agreed to resolve such disputes through
arbitration. In cases where the agreements do not contain an
arbitration clause, the petitioners may have to resort to the ordinary
remedy of filing a civil suit to pursue their claims.
12. As noted earlier, in almost identical circumstances, this Court, by its
common judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2026, disposing of
W.P.(C) Nos. 5303, 6007 and 2583 of 2025, declined to entertain
writ petitions but relegated the parties to arbitration. In those cases,
since the parties agreed upon the appointment of an Arbitral
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
Tribunal, with the express consent of the parties, this Court
proceeded to appoint the Arbitral Tribunal so that the disputes could
be resolved expeditiously. The reasoning in our order of 22 nd
January, 2026, will equally apply in the present cases.
13. In Kulchhinder Singh v. Hardayal Singh Brar, (1976) 3 SCC
828, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a writ petition is
unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. The fact that the
respondent was a "State" is not sufficient and an enquiry should be
whether what is sought to be enforced is a statutory duty or
sovereign obligation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through
Krishna Iyer, J observed as follows:-
"The writ petition, stripped of embroidery and legalistics,
stands naked as a simple contract between the staff and the
society agreeing upon a certain percentage of promotions to
various posts or an omnibus, all-embracing promise to give a
quota to the existing employees. At its best, the writ petition
seeks enforcement of a binding contract but the neat and
necessary repellant is that the remedy of Article 226 is
unavailable to enforce a contract qua contract. We fail to see
how a supplier of chalk to a government school or cheese to a
government hospital can ask for a constitutional remedy under
Article 226 in the event of a breach of a contract, bypassing the
normal channels of civil litigation. ........... Private law may
involve a State, a statutory body, or a public body in contractual
or tortious actions. But they cannot be siphoned off into the writ
jurisdiction (emphasis supplied)"
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
14. In Divl. Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., (1981) 3
SCC 238, the petitioner tried to enforce through writ petition the
right to remove timber under a contract. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court did not allow this by observing that ordinarily where a breach
of contract is complained of, a party complaining of such breach
may sue for specific performance of the contract if the contract is
capable of being specifically performed or the party may sue for
damages. Such a suit would ordinarily be cognizable by civil court.
The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a
petition either for specific performance of contract or for recovering
damages.
15. In LIC v. Asha Goel (2001) 2 SCC 160, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that
in no case, the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution to enforce a claim under a contract for life
insurance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court that the determination of the
question depends upon consideration of several factors like,
whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her
contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and
constitutional issues, the nature of dispute raised, the nature of
enquiry necessary for determination of the dispute, etc. While the
jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, Courts
must bear in mind the self-imposed restriction consistently followed
by the High Courts all these years after the constitutional power
came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for
enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
involved disputed questions of facts. The Courts have consistently
take the view that in case where for the determination of the
dispute raised, it is necessary to enquire into facts for determination
of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the
appropriate forum. The position is also well settled that if the
contract entered between the parties provide an alternate forum for
resolution of disputes arising from the contract, then the parties
should approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in
writ jurisdiction should not permit them to bypass the agreed forum
of dispute resolution.
16. In State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1
SCC 216, the petitioner questioned the deduction of an amount
from the final bill to be paid to the petitioner-contractor by alleging
breach of contract by him. The High Court allowed the petition.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reversing the High Court's
order, held that even if it is possible to decide the question raised in
the petition, based on affidavits and counter-affidavits, it would not
be proper to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution in cases of alleged breach of contract.
17. As noted above, this is a matter where no public law element is
shown to be involved. Notwithstanding the language used in some
of the petitions alleging unfairness or arbitrariness, these matters
involve alleged breaches of non-statutory contracts. A resolution of
the dispute would involve adjudication of highly disputed questions
of fact. Admittedly, in at least some of the matters, the agreements
contain an arbitration clause. Therefore, upon cumulative
2026:JHHC:7222-DB
consideration of all these factors, we are satisfied that these are not
matters where we should entertain writ petitions or exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. For the above reasons, we decline to entertain these petitions.
However, we grant the petitioners liberty to invoke the arbitration
clauses, if any, in their agreements or to resort to the ordinary civil
remedies before the Civil Court for resolution of their disputes, as
have been raised in these petitions.
19. Since this Court has not adjudicated upon the rival disputes on
merits, all contentions of all parties on the merits of the disputes are
left explicitly open to be decided through arbitration and/or the
ordinary civil remedies before the Civil Courts.
20. All these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty in the above
terms. No costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
17th March, 2026
Sanjay/Rohit
Uploaded on 18.03.2026
