Disposed

Jai Brahmani Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2022CW/1167/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a construction contract and blacklisting. It directed the petitioner to file representations and ordered the respondent BDO to consider them within two weeks, while staying work execution pending final order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representations; Respondent No.3 directed to consider them within two weeks; work execution stayed until 28.02.2022.

Jai Brahmani Construction Company Vs State of… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1167/2022

¶3

Jai Brahmani Construction Company, Through Its Proprietor Nanji Ram S/o Shri Tulsa Ram, By Caste Kalbi, Aged About 32 Years, Shop No. 01, Ward No. 01, Main Bazar, Bhedana, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur.

¶7

The District Collector, Barmer.

¶8

Block Development Officer And Project Officer (Mnrega), Panchayat Samiti Gudamalani, District Barmer.

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.

¶10

Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Gudamalani, District Barmer. 6. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dev Nagar, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Narendra Thanvi,through VC
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ramdhari Singh for
	Mr. R.R. Mundhan,through VC

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

02/02/2022

¶16

Though communication dated 08.11.2021, cancelling petitioner’s contract and black-listing him from taking part in future contracts, have been challenged, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondent No.3 is directed to consider his representations (Annex.8 and 9) in accordance with law, while

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-1167/2022]

¶19

highlighting that the same have not even been referred to in the impugned communication dated 08.11.2021.

¶20

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order instant along with photo copies of the representations said to have been addressed before the respondent No.3, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶21

The respondent No.3 is directed to consider petitioner’s representation in accordance with law within a period of two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order instant.

¶22

Till 28.02.2022, the work awarded to the petitioner shall not be got done at petitioner’s risk and cost, whereafter the final order of the BDO shall hold the field, subject of course to petitioner’s right to avail remedies available under the law.

¶23

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶25

34-skm/-

Jai Brahmani Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Brahmani Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Vaishnav Vs the Union of India

Prakash Vs Union of India

Gunwanti Devi Vs Union of India

Geeta Devi Sharma Vs Union of India

Krishna Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Rani Vs the State of Rajasthan