Rajasthan High Court
M/S Shri Ram Traders vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3644/2022
M/s Shri Ram Traders
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, AG with
Mr. Kartik Seth
Mr. Parikshit Singh Shekhawat
Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Mr. Siddhant Jain
Mr. Tarang Gupta
Mr. Darsh Pareek
Mr. Sahil Nagpal
Ms. Shriya Gilhotra through VC
Ms. Garima Saxena
Mr. Pranav Bhansali
Mr. Kritesh Oswal &
Mr. Divyaprakash Modi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
29/04/2022
For the reasons stated in the application No.3/2022 filed by
the respondents No.1 to 5 for taking documents on record, the
same is allowed. The documents appended with the application
are taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed
an application dated 27.04.2022 seeking amendment in the writ
petition which is yet to come on record and hence, the matter may
be adjourned.
Opposing the prayer, learned Advocate General submitted
that there is an ex parte interim order dated 03.03.2022 operating
(2 of 5) [CW-3644/2022]
against them and the matter was posted for final disposal at this
stage by this Court on the request of the learned counsels for the
respective parties. He submitted that petitioner was granted time
by this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2022 to satisfy it that
even when the writ petition is suffering from the vice of not only
suppression of material fact; but, of containing false averments
also having important bearing on the issue; still, this Court is
obliged to enter into the merits of the case in its writ jurisdiction.
Learned Advocate General submitted that to circumvent the
aforesaid order, an application seeking amendment has been filed
with a request for adjournment of the matter. Learned AG
submitted that in case the matter is adjourned on the request of
the learned counsel for the petitioner, their application for vacation
of ex parte interim order may kindly be heard as the State is
facing great hardship on account of interim order dated
03.03.2022 which is prejudicial to the public interest also as the
excavation and uploading of pond ash is hampered causing huge
environmental damage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court
has passed the interim order dated 03.03.2022 taking into
consideration that without termination of contract in its favour
granted by the respondents vide letter of award dated 08.06.2020
for a period of 36 months, they have issued a second contract in
favour of the respondent No.6 vide letter of award dated
19.01.2022 which was impermissible under the terms of contract.
He submitted that averments in the writ petition contained in Para
9 has to be read in consonance with Clause 8 of the terms and
conditions of contract which speaks of termination of contract in
favour of the petitioner before the work under the contract can be
(3 of 5) [CW-3644/2022]
awarded in favour of any other person. Learned counsel submitted
that even otherwise also, the documents placed by the
respondents on record, cannot be said to have any bearing on the
issue unless contract awarded in its favour is terminated. He, in
support of his submissions, relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex
Court of India in cases of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors.; (2004) 7 SCC 166 & Arunima Baruah Vs.
Union of India (UOI) & Ors.; (2007) 6 SCC 120.
Per contra, learned Advocate General submitted that the
petitioner has, in the memo of writ petition, not only suppressed
the material fact; but, has also made false averments. He
submitted that the petitioner was issued with successive
letters/notices conveying complaints of not only overcharging but,
also of not adhering to terms of contract by not loading the pond
ash with diligence. Drawing attention of this Court towards the
response made by the petitioner to some of the letters/notices,
learned Advocate General submitted that therein it has been
admitted that work under the contract could not be performed
within time for the reasons which were not found to be plausible.
He submitted that by suppressing the material facts, the petitioner
has been able to obtain an interim order from this Court which
deserves to be vacated. He, in support of his submissions, relied
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of
Ramjas Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (2010) 14
SCC 38 and Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. Vs. Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors.; (2013) 11 SCC 531.
Heard. Considered.
In Para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made
following averments:-
(4 of 5) [CW-3644/2022]
"That consequent to the award of
excavation Petitioner started performing his
obligations strictly in terms of contract dated
08.06.2020. It would be relevant to
mention here that till date Petitioner is
performing his duties at the given site with
the diligences. Moreover, till date
Respondents have not issued any warning
or show cause notice with regard to the
work of Petitioner thus, it can be safely
concluded that the petitioner is
discharging his duties with utmost
sincerity."
Similar averments are made by the petitioner in ground H of
the writ petition.
Thus, while the petitioner has made categorical statement
that till date it has not been issued any warning or show cause
notice with regard to work and it is discharging duties with utmost
sincerity and due diligence, the documents placed by the
respondents on record alongwith the application reveal otherwise.
It is revealed that the petitioner was served with as many as 15
letters/notices on various occasions conveying either the
complaint that it is overcharging the rate than agreed under the
contract and/or it is not performing its work diligently; few of
which were even responded by the petitioner. In view thereof,
there is not an iota of doubt that the petitioner was well aware
that it was issued several letters/notices by the respondents
conveying deficiency in its working before filing of the writ petition
but, still it made false averments as are contained in Para 9 and
ground H of the writ petition. It is trite law that a person invoking
equitable jurisdiction of this Court has to approach with clean
hands. In view thereof, this Court, while adjourning the matter on
the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, deems it just and
proper to vacate the ex parte interim order 03.03.2022.
(5 of 5) [CW-3644/2022]
Accordingly, the applications No.1/2022 & 2/2022 filed by the
respondents No.1 to 5 and respondent No.6 respectively, are
allowed.
The interim order dated 03.03.2022 is vacated.
List the matter after three weeks as prayed by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
