[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S United Coal Carrier vs Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral ... on 30 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 792/2024
M/s United Coal Carrier, Prop. Manoj Kumar Agarwalla (Huff),
Opp. Canara Bank, Main Road, Jharia Bazar, So Jharna,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand Through Its Authorized Representative
Namely Arvind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Darshan Singh Rathore,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1-A, Maa Vaishnow Nagar, Yadav
Farm, Jodhi Farm, Jaipur - 302012, India.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Limited, Through Its
Chairman, Having Its Office At C-89, Jan Path Kothi
Scheme, Jaipur - 302015.
2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mine And Minerals
Limited Its Office At 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur, (Raj.).
3. Head Contracts/dgm (F And A), Rajasthan State Mine And
Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Pmp Infratech Private Limited, A Company Registered
Under The Companies Act, 2013 Having Its Registered
Office At Block A Shop 104-A, 104B, Ganesh Meridian S.
G. Highway Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Through Its
Authorized Representative Shri Mukesh Kumar Ishwar
Patel S/o Sh. Ishwarlal Patel Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of 18, Trishla Residency, Nr. R.c. Technical, Opp.
Gujarat Highcourt, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 800/2024
M/s United Coal Carrier, Main Road, Po Jharia Bazar-82811,
District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand And Through Authorized
Representative Namely Arvind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Darshan
Singh Rathore, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1-A, Maa Vaishnow
Nagar, Yadav Farm, Jodi Farm, Jaipur-302012, India.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Limited, 4, Meera
Marg, Udaipur-313004, Through Managing Director.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:29:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
2. Pmp Infratech Private Limited, A Company Registered
Under The Companies Act, 2013, Having Its Registered
Office At Block A Shop 104-A, 104B, Ganesh Meridian S.g.
Highway Ahmedabad, Through Its Authorized
Representative Shri Mukesh Kumar Ishwarlal Patel S/o
Sh. Ishwarlal Patel Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 18,
Trishala Residency Nr, R.c. Technical Opp. Gujarat High
Court, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 801/2024
M/s United Coal Carrier, Prop. Manoj Kumar Agarwalla (Huff),
Opp. Canara Bank, Main Road, Jharia Bazar, So Jharna,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand Through Its Authorized Representative
Namely Arvind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Darshan Singh Rathore,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1-A, Maa Vaishnow Nagar, Yadav
Farm, Jdi Frm, Jaipur-302012.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Limited, Through Its
Chairman, Having Its Office At C-89, Jan Path, Lal Kothi
Scheme, Jaipur-302015.
2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mine And Minerals
Limited Its Office At 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur, (Raj.).
3. First Appellate Authority Cum Director, Rajasthan State
Mines And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera
Marg, Udaipur (Raj.).
4. Second Appellate Authority Cum Director, Rajasthan State
Mines And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera
Marg, Udaipur (Raj.).
5. Sh. Dinesh Dargar, The Then Head Contractors, Rajasthan
State Mines And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4,
Meera Marg, Udaipur (Raj.).
6. Sh. Tulsiram Agarwal, F And A, Rajasthan State Mines
And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg,
Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Sh. Kamal Bishnoi, Joint Legal Remembrance, Rajasthan
State Mines And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4,
Meera Marg, Udaipur (Raj.).
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 04:29:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
8. M/s Adhunik Khanan Va Parivahan Theka Sahkari Samiti,
Having Its Address At Near Shardul Sanskrit College, Rani
Bazaar, Bikaner Through Its Authorized Repersentative
Sh. Suresh Kumar Daftari, S/o Sh. Sumer Mal Ji Daftari,
Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Old Line, Ganagashahar
Bikaner.
9. Pmp Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Block A Shop 104A, 104B,
Ganesh Meridian S.g. Highway Ahmedabad.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Shweta Chauhan and
Mr. Tarang Gupta
Mr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Gautam Bhadadra Mr.
Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch
Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Prateek Gattani
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Dinesh Godara
Mr. Ramavatar Sikhwal and Mr. Arpit
Samaria for Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG
Mr. Gopal Krishna Chhangani
Ms. Simran Mehta
Mr. Vishal Singh
Mr. Harsh Shekhawat
Mr. Vinay Jain
Mr. Darshan Jain
Mr. Sunil Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 16/03/2026
Pronounced on : 30/03/2026
(Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)
1. The instant Special Appeals have been preferred against the
common order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Single
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 200/2024, 416/2024 and
1805/2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, United Coal
Carrier, was awarded a tender on 17.07.2023 for "loading of
limestone gitti of various sizes into tippers/dumpers from crusher
hopper(s) and/or different stacks lying at the company's Sanu
Mines, District Jaisalmer; its transportation to the railway siding at
Sanu Railway Station; and its unloading, stacking, watch and
ward, and mechanized loading into railway wagons using front-end
loaders, etc." The parties executed a formal agreement on
16.08.2023.
2.1 Since the appellant failed to carry out the requisite quantity
of work as stipulated under the contract, various communications
were issued directing it to meet the prescribed production criteria,
failing which action would be initiated in terms of the contract. The
appellant responded to such communications, citing prevailing law
and order issues as the primary impediment to performance.
2.2 Thereafter, vide communication/order dated 24.12.2023, the
appellant's contract was terminated under Clause 4.86 of the
contract. The security deposit was ordered to be forfeited,
including the additional performance security of Rs. 5.27 crores
(bank guarantee), bid security of Rs. 411.84 lakhs (bank
guarantee), and the balance amount recoverable from dues
payable to the appellant or otherwise. The appellant was also
blacklisted from participating in future tenders of the respondent
company for a period of three years from the date of the said
communication.
2.3 On the same day, i.e., 24.12.2023, the authorities
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
approached respondent - PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. to undertake the
work as a stopgap arrangement. The said respondent accepted the
offer, and a Letter of Acceptance was issued in its favour on
25.12.2023. However, on 26.12.2023, both the termination of the
appellant's contract and the Letter of Acceptance issued to PMP
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. were kept in abeyance.
2.4 PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 200/2024) challenged the order dated 26.12.2023 on various
grounds. Similarly, M/s Adhunik Khanan Va Parivahan Theka
Sahkari Samiti (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024)
also challenged the said order and sought award of the
transportation work in its favour. The appellant, in turn,
challenged the acceptance of the technical bid of PMP Infratech
Pvt. Ltd. by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1805/2024.
3. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the aforesaid writ
petitions, dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1805/2024 on the
ground that the offer made to PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. on
25.12.2023, along with the corresponding Letter of Acceptance,
was merely a stopgap arrangement and not in furtherance of the
original e-bid process. It was further observed that once the
financial bids had been opened and the contract had been
executed on 17.07.2023, any challenge to the technical bids lost
its relevance, particularly as PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. was ranked L-
3 and the appellant had approached the Court after a delay of
about six months.
3.1 The learned Single Judge allowed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
200/2024 and quashed the order dated 26.12.2023, holding that
the Chairman had acted without authority and arbitrarily in
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
staying the termination order dated 24.12.2023 and the Letter of
Acceptance dated 25.12.2023, thereby assuming the role of an
appellate authority without jurisdiction and without recording
reasons. It was further held that the Managing Director's order
dated 26.12.2023 was vitiated by dictation, as contractual
decisions fall within his exclusive domain and cannot be interfered
with by higher authorities. The Court emphasized that State action
must be fair and non-arbitrary and that a terminated contract
cannot be revived nor kept in abeyance by an administrative
order.
3.2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024 was disposed of in
terms of the judgment rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
200/2024.
3.3 The authorities were directed to initiate a fresh tender
process. However, it was clarified that the Court had not
adjudicated upon the legality of the termination order dated
24.12.2023 or the eligibility of PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd., and the
appellant's right to challenge the termination order was expressly
reserved.
4. The appellant - United Coal Carrier, thereafter filed a writ
petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15655/2024) challenging the
termination order dated 24.12.2023, which was heard along with
the present batch of Special Appeals. The said writ petition has
been allowed today, and the termination order dated 24.12.2023
has been quashed and set aside.
5. In view of the aforesaid, since the very foundation of the
dispute, i.e., the termination of the contract, no longer survives,
all consequential actions, including the Letter of Acceptance dated
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
25.12.2023 issued in favour of PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and the
order dated 26.12.2023 keeping the termination and the said
Letter of Acceptance in abeyance, lose their significance.
Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the issues
framed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order no
longer require adjudication in light of this subsequent
development.
5.1 It is noted that learned counsel appearing for all the parties
have filed written submissions and also relied upon various
judgments in support of their respective arguments, however, in
view of the subsequent development i.e. the writ petition filed by
the present appellant challenging the termination has been
allowed today, we do not deem it necessary to examine or
adjudicate upon the submissions advanced by the parties on the
issues framed by the learned Single Judge.
6. For ready reference the issues framed by learned Single
Judge so also the decision made thereupon is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"1. In these writ petitions, following questions have arisen
for consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether the contract once cancelled by the awardee
can be revived?
(ii) Whether the Chairman or any authority not being the
Appellate Authority or the Court can order revival of an
already terminated contract?
(iii) Whether by way of an administrative order, the
termination of contract can be kept in abeyance?
XXX XXX XXX
92. As a consequence of discussion foregoing, this Court
answers the questions as follows:-
(i). A contract once cancelled by the awardee after
following due process, cannot be revived by the awardee
itself.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
(ii) As a consequence of the discussion made, it is held that
the Chairman or any other authority not being the
Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order for revival
of an already terminated contract.
(iii) As this Court has held that the terminated contract
cannot be revived, there arises no question of keeping the
termination of contract in abeyance by the awarder itself,
that too by an administrative order.
93. CONCLUSION:
(i) The writ petition filed by PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. being
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024 is allowed.
(ii) The writ petition filed by the petitioner Adhunik being
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024 stands disposed of in
terms of the order that has been passed qua S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 200/2024.
(iii) Having regard to the fact that the order dated
26.12.2023 has been quashed and also in view of the
finding that the petitioner -PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. has
been issued letter of acceptance dated 25.12.2023 not as a
bidder, because the applicability of RTPP Act has come to
an end, once the contract came to be executed between
UCC and the respondent company, the writ petition filed
by the UCC being S.B.CWP No. 1805/2024 is not required
to be decided, as it would be an exercise in futility to
pronounce upon the eligibility of said PMP Infratech Pvt.
Ltd..
94. The impugned order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure-13)
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024, is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondent RSMML is directed to
initiate fresh tender process forthwith.
95. Until the proceedings pursuant to fresh e-bids are
finalized and work order is issued, the respondent -
RSMML shall be free to get the subject work (covered by
the NIT dated 23.03.2023) done, through any of the
parties, as deemed expedient. The petitioner (PMP) will be
free to file a suit for damages, for wrongful denial of work.
96. While parting with the judgment, this Court deems it
appropriate to clarify that it has neither pronounced upon
the correctness or legality of the order dated 24.12.2023,
whereby the contract awarded to United Coal Carrier
(UCC) was determined nor has it pronounced upon the
eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner - PMP Infratech
Pvt. Ltd.
97. Be that as it may. The rights of the petitioner UCC to
lay challenge to the order dated 24.12.2023, whereby the
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
contract awarded to it has been determined, by way of
taking appropriate remedies shall stand reserved."
7. For clarity, it would be apposite to refer to the prayer clause
of the writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge wherein
challenge was laid to the order dated 26.12.2023 :-
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.200/2024
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: -
1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
decision/order dated 26.12.2023 (Annex-.13) passed by the
respondent RSMML may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
petitioner company may kindly be permitted to undertake
the work order dated 25.12.2023 (Annex-1.1.) for 3 months
or till the new contract is executed by the respondent
RSMML;
3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent RSMML to issue a fresh tender process and
invite fresh bids from the bidders for the transportation of
limestone from Sanu mines to the railway sliding within 3
months;
4. Any other appropriate order or relief which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in
favor of the humble petitioner."
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.416/2024
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition may kindly be allowed and: -
1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
decision/order dated 26.12.2023 (Annex-.6) passed by the
respondent RSMML may kindly be quashed and set aside;
2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
decision/order dated 25.12.2023 (Annex-.5) passed by the
respondent RSMML for awarding work in favor of
Respondent No. 9, may kindly be quashed and set aside;
3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent no.
1 and 2 may be directed to work order in favour of the
petitioner.
4. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the
interregnum period, the respondent no. 1 and 2 may kindly
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
be directed to undertake negotiations with the petitioner and
award the contract to the bidder;
5. Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in
favor of the humble petitioner."
8. It can be discerned from the reliefs sought and the order
passed by the learned Single Judge that the issue of termination
of the appellant's contract was not under consideration, rather, the
challenge was confined to the stay imposed on such termination.
In other words, the adjudication pertained only to the actions of
the authorities subsequent to the termination of the appellant's
contract.
8.1 Therefore, at the cost of repetition, it is evident from the
above that there was no adjudication with respect to the
termination order/communication dated 24.12.2023, which
formed the very basis of the subsequent order dated 26.12.2023.
However, it cannot be denied that the adjudication on validity of
the termination order would have a direct bearing on the validity
of the order dated 26.12.2023. As already noted hereinabove,
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15655/2024, filed assailing the
termination order, has been allowed today, resulting in the
termination order being quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
very foundation of the order dated 26.12.2023 ceases to exist,
rendering the said order and all consequential actions arising
therefrom unsustainable in law.
9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated
19.07.2024, insofar as it relates to S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.
200/2024 and 416/2024, is quashed and set aside, as the said
writ petitions have been rendered infructuous. The cause of action
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
therein arose from the order dated 26.12.2023, however, in view
of the quashing of the termination order itself, neither the order
dated 26.12.2023 nor the Letter of Acceptance dated 25.12.2023
can be sustained in law. Accordingly, D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos.
792/2024 and 801/2024 stand disposed of, and S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos. 200/2024 and 416/2024 are dismissed as having
become infructuous.
10. So far as D.B. Special Appeal No. 800/2024 is concerned, the
appellant has challenged its dismissal of writ petition wherein it
questioned the eligibility of PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Learned Single
Judge qua the writ petition filed by the appellant observed as
under :-
"19. Having heard rival Senior Counsel on the preliminary
objection, this Court is of the view that assuming that there
is some substance in the writ petition filed by the contractor
UCC, it is too late in a day to entertain its challenge,
particularly when the bids were opened way back on
30.06.2023 and the contractor (UCC) did not lay any
challenge to the acceptance of technical bid of PMP
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. And it is only when it has realised that its
rights are under threat, the present writ petition has been
filed Jas a counter blast to obviate or avoid any adverse
impact on its business rights.
20. That apart, the offer which has been made to PMP
Infratech Pvt. Ltd., on 25.12.2023 and corresponding letter
of acceptance dated 25.12.2023 cannot be said to be a
process in furtherance of subject e-bid or proceedings, per-
se, as the same has been done as a stopgap arrangement for
a period of three months or until fresh tender process takes
place.
21. According to this Court, once the financial bids have
been opened and contract has been executed on 17.07.2023,
issue regarding correctness or otherwise of the technical
bids looses its significance, particularly when the petitioner
PMP was L-3 and a period of six months had since passed,
when the petition came to be filed.
XXX XXX XXX
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13976-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-792/2024]
93. CONCLUSION:
(i) XXX
(ii) XXX
(iii) Having regard to the fact that the order dated
26.12.2023 has been quashed and also in view of the finding
that the petitioner -PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. has been issued
letter of acceptance dated 25.12.2023 not as a bidder,
because the applicability of RTPP Act has come to an end,
once the contract came to be executed between UCC and the
respondent company, the writ petition filed by the UCC
being S.B.CWP No. 1805/2024 is not required to be decided,
as it would be an exercise in futility to pronounce upon the
eligibility of said PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd.."
10.1 We are of the considered opinion that the belated challenge
to the eligibility of PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. is devoid of merit and
would not yield any substantive relief. We find ourselves in
agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single
Judge in respect of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1805/2024.
Accordingly, D.B. Special Appeal No. 800/2024, arising out of the
order dated 19.07.2023 to the extent it pertains to S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 1805/2024, is hereby dismissed.
11. Any pending applications stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:37:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
