Jharkhand High Court
Freyr Energy Services Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:22958-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6171 of 2017
FREYR ENERGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, a Company
registered under the Indian Companies Act, 2013, having its registered
office at Plot No.154, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, P.O. & P.S.
Madhapur, District Hyderabad-500033 (Telangana), through its
Managing Director, namely, Saurabh Marda, son of Sri G. S. Marda,
resident of Plot No.154, Kavuri Hills, Phase-II, Madhapur, P.O. & P.S.
Madhapur, District Hyderabad-500033 (Telangana).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Energy,
having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
Town & District Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (JREDA),
through its Director, having its office at 3rd Floor, SLDC Building,
Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town & District Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Saurav Mahto, A.C. to G.P.-I
For the JREDA: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Pronounced on: 11/08/2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following substantial reliefs:
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside Letter no.1135/2017 dated 09.10.2017 issued under the signature of the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-20), whereby and whereunder the work order and the consequential agreement entered with the petitioner for carrying out the work of "Rural Electrification of 44 Villages" awarded in favour of the petitioner-
Company through "Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants" has been terminated in a most arbitrary manner, actuated with malice in law Page 1 of 8 2025:JHHC:22958-DB ) and contrary to the express terms and conditions of the agreement dated 01.08.2017, including the general terms and conditions of the contract;
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing Letter No.1135/2017 dated 9.10.2017 issued under the signature of the Respondent No.2-Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (JREDA) (Annexure-20), whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tender issued by the Respondent No.2 for a period of five years and further order has been passed for forfeiting the contract performance guarantee submitted by the petitioner-Company for an amount of Rs.1,05,42,170/-.
(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of declaration, declaring that the action of the Respondent No.2 in forfeiting the contract performance guarantee of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,05,42,170/- is actuated with malice in law and amounts to an act of egregious fraud on the part of the Respondent No.2;
(iv) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith refund an amount of Rs.1,05,42,170/-, which has been realized from the petitioner by encashing its contract performance guarantee submitted by the petitioner pursuant to agreement dated 01.08.2017.
(v) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the work, in question, relating to "Rural Electrification of 44 Villages" through "Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants" pursuant to the work order dated 05.06.2017 and the consequential agreement dated 01.08.2017;
(vi) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing/setting aside E-procurement notice dated 09.10.2017 issued by the respondents for Rural Electrification through Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants to the extent the said Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'NIT') pertains to 47 villages for which earlier work order dated 05.06.2017 and agreement dated 01.08.2017 were entered with the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.04.2017, the respondent no.2 Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (in short 'JREDA') invited tenders for rural electrification works of 94 villages through Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants. The petitioner was successful Page 2 of 8 2025:JHHC:22958-DB ) in the tender for rural electrification works of 44 villages within the districts of West Singhbhum, Chatra, Sahibganj, Gumla and Hazaribagh and was granted the Work Order on 05.06.2017.
3. A formal agreement between the parties came to be executed on 01.08.2017. As per terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, the successful bidder was to start work within 15 days after the agreement and the said work was required to be completed within 06 months from the date of the agreement.
4. However, the respondent-JREDA within a short span of one month on 01.09.2017 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner to the effect that the work implementation by the petitioner is slow and the petitioner was accordingly directed to expedite the work. Surprisingly enough, on 06.09.2017, the respondent-JREDA themselves granted approval to the manufacturing vendors for supply of materials and thereafter on 07.09.2017 granted partial approval of the detailed project report, but again directed the petitioner to submit certain details for approval of DPR. Petitioner accordingly vide communication dated 22.09.2017 submitted the detailed construction plan to the respondents for their approval.
5. Yet the respondents again issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 23.09.2017 to show cause why its contract be not terminated, as well its performance security be not forfeited and the petitioner be not debarred from participating in any bid issued by JREDA.
Page 3 of 8
2025:JHHC:22958-DB )
6. The petitioner vide its communication dated 27.09.2017 furnished the reply to the show-cause notice giving details of the progress of the work.
7. On the very next day i.e. on 28.09.2017, an email was written by the respondent-JREDA informing the petitioner that a review meeting under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, has been organized on 02.10.2017 for assessment-wise progress report and future plan for completion of the project. This meeting, however, was postponed and held on the next date on 03.10.2017 wherein the petitioner had duly explained the progress of work and had also duly stated that they would complete the work within overall time-limit as provided under Clause 6.
8. Yet, the respondent-JREDA issued a fresh tender on 09.10.2017 in respect of the villages that were allotted to the petitioner and vide order dated 09.10.2017 terminated the work order and debarred the petitioner for 05 years and even ordered the forfeiture of the performance security guarantee. Later on, on 01.11.2017, a part of the work came to be allotted to one M/s. Sun Infrastructure.
9. Aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the reliefs as quoted above.
10. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute and the specific case of the respondents-JREDA is that since the petitioner did not adhere to the timelines as set out in the agreement in Clause 6, therefore, it has rightly terminated the contract, forfeited the security money and debarred the petitioner for 05 years.
Page 4 of 8
2025:JHHC:22958-DB )
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the records of the case.
12. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the respondents have been very casual in this case as they have not filed any separate counter in spite of the specific order to that effect on 29.11.2017.
13. It is clearly evident from the facts of the case that it was pursuant to the tender invited on 15.04.2017 the petitioner was held to be successful in the tender for rural electrification works of 44 villages in the districts as mentioned above, however, the formal agreement between the parties came to be executed on 01.08.2017. Clause 6 is the General Terms of the Contract and it is clearly provided in Clause 6.2 that the successful bidder shall start work within 15 days after the agreement. In addition thereto, Clause 6.3 clearly provides, "if, at any time, it appears that the actual progress of work does not conform to the milestones as per Agreement, a revised time schedule shall be submitted by Successful Bidder to JREDA to ensure completion of the work within the overall timeframe of the project. The revised time schedule shall be submitted to JREDA for his approval and should be approved by JREDA. The milestones for completion of work shall be: xxx xxx xxx
14. Clause 6.6 deals with the clauses regarding completion of the work which reads as under:
"6.6 Completion of Work: Time being the essence of contract, the erection of the SPV power plant shall be completed within the period specified in the Agreement i.e. 6 months from the date of Signing of Agreement. After completion of project, a joint commissioning certificate (JCC) (Annexure-11) duly signed shall be submitted by the authorized representative of the Successful Page 5 of 8 2025:JHHC:22958-DB ) Bidder. Every JCC should have two sets of photographs of following:
a) Control room with modules installed on structure (Three views)
b) String Junction Box (SJBs), Array Junction Box (AJBs) & Main Junction Box (MJB) (three views).
c) PCU & control panels installed in the PCU room (Three views)
d) Battery bank installed in the battery room (Three views)
e) Lighting arrestor & Earthing kit installed (Three views)
f) Power Distribution Network (Ten views)"
15. Clause 6.1 reads as under:
"6.1 Manner of Execution: Execution of Work shall be carried out in an approved manner as outlined in the technical specifications/standards or where not outlined, in accordance with relevant Indian Standard/specifications, to reasonable satisfaction of JREDA. The timelines for the execution of Work shall be as per Table 2 below:
Table 2: Work execution timelines Sl. Activity/Deliverables Timelines No. 1 Issuance of Letter of Award (LOA) to the X days contractor 2 Signing of Agreement between JREDA & X+15 Days Contractor 3 Development of Major Civil work including X+35 Days boundary walls, construction, site cover etc. 4 Dispatch of major construction material i.e. Solar X+45 days Panel, Inverter, Cable, Battery Bank, Ploe, LT & Control Panel in good condition at project site.
5 Installation of Module PV modules and BOS X+75 Days including power conditions/inverter. Charge controller/MPPT units, storage batteries, cables used in power generation plant.
6 Construction of Power Distribution network (PDN) X+90 Days from Power plant to the Household 7 Providing connection to the Individual Household X+130 Days with metering arrangement from distribution network.Page 6 of 8
2025:JHHC:22958-DB ) 8 Commissioning of complete generation and X+150 Days distribution network 9 Testing and commissioning over the project X+165 Days
16. No doubt, there is a table appended to Clause 6.1 providing for the timelines, but, then, the timelines as scheduled in the table are contrary to Clause 6.2 which reads as under:-
"6.2 The Successful Bidder shall start Work within 15 days after the Agreement.
17. Apart from the above, it also needs to be noticed that it was only on 06.09.2017 that the vendors for the first time came to be approved by the respondent no.2 and on the very next date, i.e. 07.09.2017, the DPRs submitted by the petitioner were approved by respondent no.2.
18. In such circumstances, we really wonder how the respondent no.2 could have asked the petitioner to execute the work and thereafter blame the petitioner for not adhering to the timelines, ultimately leading to the order of termination, which order has been passed prior to the six months, rather, little over two months, from the date of the agreement.
19. That apart, the respondent-JREDA in terms of Clause 6.3 of the Agreement, as quoted above, was duty-bound to have provided a revised time schedule to the petitioner in case they felt that the actual progress of the work was not in conformity with the milestones as per the agreement.
20. Clearly in such circumstances, the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary, but the respondents have shown undue duress and the impugned action is contrary to the agreement, more particularly, Clause 6 as discussed above.
Page 7 of 8
2025:JHHC:22958-DB )
21. Accordingly, we find merit in this writ petition and the same is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the security money within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the due date till the date of its actual payment. As regards the debarment of the petitioner, the same is rendered infructuous in view of the order passed on 29.11.2017 in I.A. No.8445 of 2017, coupled with the fact that the period of debarment has already expired.
22. All pending applications shall stand disposed off.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/-
Page 8 of 8