Pravin Kumar @ Praveen Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- : None : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V ----- For the Petitioner For the Respondents Order No. 07 Dated: 20.04.2026

None for the petitioner, though the matter was duly notified.

Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned GP-V appears for the respondents (State).

The petitioner, curiously, after executing the lease agreement dated

20.01.2023 for operating the “Adhunik Dak Bungalow” at Chatra, now seeks a writ for cancellation of this lease-deed and for refund of the amounts that the petitioner claims to have paid to the respondents under the lease-deed. The petitioner, also resists the payment of further amounts under this lease-deed.

The petitioner’s case is that the State respondents failed to perform its part of the contract i.e., installation of certain amenities such as fan, beds, sofa etc. In short, the petitioner alleges breach of the terms of the lease agreement by the respondents and on that basis seeks the cancellation of the lease-deed, refund of amounts paid thereunder and a restraint on recovery of any further amount. 1

The case of the petitioner has been denied by the respondents who point out that it is the petitioner who has breached the terms and conditions of the lease-deed. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents states that opportunities were granted to the petitioner but he evinced no interest in operating the “Adhunik Dak Bungalow”.

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the dispute raised in this petition is purely a contractual dispute having no statutory underpinnings whatsoever. He submitted that there are seriously disputed questions of fact that may not be adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that the entire objective of instituting this petition is to resist further payments under the lease-deed. He further points out that the lease-deed itself contains an inventory of the different items that have already been installed in the “Adhunik Dak Bungalow”. He submitted that in such circumstances, the allegations made in the petition are not correct and the same are only to avoid payments under the contract of lease.

We have considered the rival pleadings and other material on record. We are satisfied that the allegations and counter allegations concern breach of a non-statutory contract. In such a situation, we do not think that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate remedy.

Besides, from the material placed on record, we are satisfied that any adjudication on the issues now raised in this petition would involve adjudication into seriously disputed questions of fact. There 2 are assertions and counter assertions by both the parties and it is not possible to decide such a matter, based only on the correspondence placed on record by the parties. This is yet another reason why this petition cannot be entertained.

Accordingly, we dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner avail of the ordinary remedies under the law if he so chooses.

All contentions of all parties are, however, left open as we have not decided the rival contentions concerning the breach of the contract.