IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2864 of 2025 SANMAT, having its regional office at Uma Bhawan, Road No. 5B, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi, through its Secretary, Nitesh Kumar, S/o Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, R/o Shalimar Bag, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-

Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi ….. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar

3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar ….. Respondents -----

CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR -----

For the Petitioner: Mr. Afsar Raza, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II -----

03/20.01.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition challenges the communication dated 08.02.2025 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar (Respondent No. 3) cancelling the work order issued to the petitioner for renovation and upgradation of blood bank as a Model Centre in Deoghar.

3. Mr. Afsar Raza, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the work order, the petitioner was granted time up to 14.02.2025 to complete the work. He submits that the work order was prematurely cancelled on 08.02.2025 on the incorrect premise that there was no progress at the site and therefore it would not have been possible for the petitioner to complete the work by 14.02.2025. He referred us a document at page 32, which is a purchase order and based upon the same, submitted that the petitioner had purchased 70% of the equipment for the work of renovation and upgradation of the blood bank. He also referred us to the photographs annexed to the rejoinder. He submitted that the termination was arbitrary and therefore this Court should quash the communication dated 08.02.2025 and reinstate the petitioner’s work order so that it can complete the work.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour vs. Chief Executive Officer & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 to submit that cancellations of contracts should not be lightly resorted to and arbitrary terminations of contracts create uncertainty, thereby discouraging public participation in the tendering process.

5. Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-II, submitted that despite opportunities, the petitioner was not proceeding with the awarded work. After it was realised during the inspections that the petitioner could not complete the work by 14.02.2025, the impugned communication was issued to enable the work to be completed expeditiously through another agency. He further submits that there is no arbitrariness in the impugned termination, and in any event, this writ petition raises highly disputed questions of fact. He also submits that this is a case of a non-statutory contract and the petitioner is virtually seeking specific performance, which perhaps even the Civil Court would not be in a position to grant. For these reasons, he submitted that this writ petition be dismissed and the petitioner be relegated to resort to the ordinary remedies available under the law.

6. The rival contentions of the parties now fall for our determination.

7. The petitioner was issued a work order for the upgradation and renovation of the blood bank into a Model Centre in Deoghar at an estimated cost of Rs. 45 lakhs. In terms of the work order, the work had to be completed by 14.02.2025.

8. The impugned termination/cancellation/communication states that the work was inspected from time to time and that, only after it was realised that hardly any work had been carried out, it became impossible for the petitioner to complete the work within the prescribed period, and that the contract was cancelled.

9. The petitioner and the respondents have their own versions. The petitioner contends that it had procured about 70% of the materials and therefore was in a position to complete the work by the appointed date. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred us to photographs filed along with the rejoinder affidavit in addit