E-Paper
Jharkhand high court levies fine on water resources dept officials for filing ‘frivolous case’
The case concerns a dispute between the Jharkhand water resources department and the Bihar-based construction company, which was awarded about ₹2.5 crore through arbitration for civil works carried out in Jamshedpur. When the company approached the court to execute the award and recover the payment, the Jharkhand high court, on August 25, directed the executing court to dispose of the matter expeditiously by November 30. Instead of complying with this direction, the department filed a civil review petition challenging the high court’s order.
The Jharkhand high court imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on water resources department officials for filing the “most bogus and frivolous” case in a matter involving a Bihar-based construction company, M/s R.K. Construction Private Limited, an advocate familiar with the matter said on Friday.
The case concerns a dispute between the Jharkhand water resources department and the Bihar-based construction company, which was awarded about ₹2.5 crore through arbitration for civil works carried out in Jamshedpur. When the company approached the court to execute the award and recover the payment, the Jharkhand high court, on August 25, directed the executing court to dispose of the matter expeditiously by November 30. Instead of complying with this direction, the department filed a civil review petition challenging the high court’s order.
The court found that its earlier order did not examine the merits of the dispute and was issued in line with Supreme Court directions, and held that the review petition was filed with the intention of delaying the payment process.
“A division bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and justice Rajesh Shankar passed the order. It is an important judgment exposing the harassing attitude of a section of government officials who file cases in court due to vested interests, as they do not have to pay legal costs from their own pockets. The order was passed on December 16 and uploaded on the court’s website on December 17,” the advocate said, sharing a copy of the order.
“The present civil review is dismissed with a cost of ₹100,000/- to be deposited by all the petitioners out of their own pockets within a period of four weeks with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi,” the order read.
The list of petitioners included the chief engineer (Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, water resources department, Icha-Galudih Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Saraikela-Kharsawan) and the executive engineer (irrigation division of water resources department, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project, Galudih, East Singhbhum).
Senior advocate MS Mittal, who argued on behalf of the construction company, confirmed the facts when contacted for comment. He said the matter involved payment of approximately ₹2.5 crore.
“The water resources department filed a civil review against the order passed on August 25 in C.M.P. No. 397 of 2025, whereby the Jharkhand high court had directed the learned executing court to dispose of the execution petition filed by us as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by November 30. We had filed a petition to get payment of approximately ₹2.5 crore from the water resources department, awarded after arbitration in a dispute over payment for the civil work done by us in Jamshedpur,” Mittal said.
The court, in its order, observed that the government filed the petition with an oblique motive, as the high court had given its order in light of several Supreme Court judgments without any comments on the merits of the case. The court observed that the case was filed with the intention of stalling the proceedings before the learned executing court.
The order imposing the fine mentioned that the state’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence, and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity.
“It must be remembered that the state, defined within the ambit of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook. The State’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence, and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity,” the order read.
