Allowed

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2024CW/14183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed an order by the second Appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012. The Authority failed to decide the appeal/matter on merits after refusing to hear arguments, despite written submissions. The Court directed a fresh hearing within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 21.08.2024 is quashed and set aside; the second Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits within two weeks.

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35456]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14183/2024

¶4

M/s Sbe Engineering And Infrastructure Private Limited, A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 2013 Having Its Registered Office At 49-C, New Jata Bass, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Signatory Sukhram Bishnoi S/o Phagalu Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Beniwalon Ki Dhani, Vinayakpura, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶8

Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶9

Secretary Finance (Budget), Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶10

Chief Engineer, Project, Public Health Engineering Department, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Adv Asst by Mr. Chayan Bothra

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

27/08/2024

¶16

The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 21.08.2024 (Annx.17) passed by the Secretary, Finance (Budget) whereby the second appeal as well as the stay application as preferred by the petitioner firm have been rejected.

¶17

Briefs facts are that aggrieved of the order whereby penalty was imposed on the petitioner firm, a first appeal was preferred before the Competent Authority in terms of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012.

¶18

The first appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2024 and a second appeal against the other order was preferred before the Competent Authority. However, during the pendency of the

[2024:RJ-JD:35456]

[CW-14183/2024]

(2 of 4)

second appeal, the department proceeded on to pass directions for recovery of the amount from the other contracts of the petitioner firm therefore, a writ petition was preferred before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11344/2024.

¶23

Vide order dated 16.08.2024, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the stay application as preferred by the petitioner along with the second appeal on the very next date fixed i.e. 21.08.2024. Vide the said order, the department was also restrained from proceeding in pursuance to the demand notice till the disposal of the stay application by the second Appellate Authority.

¶24

In pursuance to the order dated 16.08.2024, the second Appellate Authority proceeded on to decide the second appeal as well as the stay application vide the order impugned dated 21.08.2024 which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the said date, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner firm with a specific submission that the authority was not competent to decide the appeal and the issue of jurisdiction has already been raised by the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Authority should refrain from proceeding further till the disposal of the said writ petition. However, the Appellate Authority, without passing any order on the said application, proceeded on to decide the appeal itself.

¶25

Counsel further submits that even if the issue of jurisdiction was not to be gone into by the Authority, it was under an obligation to decide the appeal on merits. The same having not been done, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

[2024:RJ-JD:35456]

[CW-14183/2024]

(3 of 4)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶30

A bare perusal of the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by this Court makes it clear that no averment regarding the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority was raised before the Court on the said date. On the said date, the only averment made was that the Appellate Authority be directed to decide the stay application.

¶31

So far as the issue of jurisdiction of the second Appellate Authority is concerned, admittedly, the writ petition raising the said issue had already been preferred by the petitioner in the month of July 2024. But neither the said fact was disclosed before the Court on 16.08.2024 nor was it averred that the second Appellate Authority does not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

¶32

Further, the ground of jurisdiction was not even raised before the second Appellate Authority. The only averment made before the Authority was that the writ petition has been preferred raising the said issue and till the said issue is decided, the authority should refrain from proceeding further.

¶33

In the specific opinion of this Court, the above conduct of the petitioner firm needs deprecation. Vide order dated 16.08.2024, the second Appellate Authority was specifically directed to decide the stay application on the next date and the said direction was passed on the request made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner firm only. Therefore, the petitioner was under an obligation to argue out the stay petition on the next date fixed before the second appellate authority.

[2024:RJ-JD:35456]

[CW-14183/2024]

(4 of 4)

As is evident from the order impugned, the petitioner specifically refused to argue out the matter before the Appellate Authority. In the said situation, the second Appellate Authority was left with no other option than to proceed further and decide the stay application.

¶38

But then it is clear on record that the order has not been passed on merits. Even if the petitioner’s counsel refused to argue out the matter, the Appellate Authority was under an obligation to decide the same on merits. As has been submitted at bar, written submissions had been filed on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the same ought to have been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal.

¶39

In view of the above facts, the order dated 21.08.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside and the second Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits.

¶40

Let a copy of the present order be placed before the second Appellate Authority within a period of one week by the petitioner. The second Appellate Authority shall be under an obligation to decide the appeal within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶41

With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶42

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶43

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶44

347-Devanshi/-

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhi Vs Bheraram

Naanalal Vs Shyamlal

Tej Prakash Vs Kana Ram @ Chota Ram

Rama M Bhansali Alias Romi M Bhansali Vs Teerthendra Suri Smarak Sangh Trust

Hasan Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Govind Ram Vs State of Rajasthan