Dismissed

M/S O.P. Trading Company v. Shri Vaibhav Galria

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2025CCP/855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an order directing consideration of the petitioners for allotment of shops in Kukarkhera Mandi. The court found the Allotment Committee had considered their cases on 16.05.2024, constituting substantial compliance, and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

None; contempt petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of, liberty granted to challenge the Minutes of Meeting dated 16.05.2024.

M/S O.P. Trading Company Vs Shri Vaibhav… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36359]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 855/2024

¶4

M/s O.P. Trading Company, 194, Deena Nath Ji Ki Gali, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor, Anil Bhatia Son Of Late Shri Om Prakash Bhatia, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 840, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

M/s Krishna Traders, 102, Barah Ji Ki Gali, Deena Nath Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor, Mahesh Prasad Badaya S/o Shri Ram Niwas Badaya, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of 184, Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

M/s Prakash And Company, Bairathio Ka Chowk, Deena Nath Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Partner, Smt. Kanta Devi Rawat Wife Of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Rawat, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 41, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

M/s Madan Lal Malpani And Sons, Khanda Aatish, Choti Chopar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor, Mahesh Kumar Malpani S/o Shri Madan Lal Malpani, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of M-36, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

M/s Roop Chand Ajay Kumar, Deena Nath Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Proprietor, Amar Chand S/o Late Shri Navratan Mal, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of 4353, Nahargarh Road, Near Police Station, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

M/s Chunni Lal Kalyan Bux, 363, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Partner, Kripa Shanker S/o Shri Gori Shanker, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 2223, Above Shop No. 377, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Shri Vaibhav Galria, Pr. Secretary To Government, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶13

Shri Jai Singh Choudhary, Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government Of Rajasthan, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:36359]

[CCP-855/2024]

Shri Bhagwan Sahai Jatav, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Anaj), Special Category, Surajpole Mandi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶18

Shri Mahipal Singh, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Anaj), Kukarkhera (Rajdhani) Mandi Yard, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Agriculture Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶20

----Respondents/Contemnors

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi with Ms. Deepa Singh Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar & Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶23

Order

¶24

09/09/2025

¶25

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order dated 28.02.2024.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not complied with the direction given in the order dated 28.02.2024 and they have not allotted the shops to the petitioners in the Kukarkhera Mandi.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondents/contemnors submits that they have complied with the direction given in the order dated 28.02.2024. It is also submitted that in compliance of order dated 28.02.2024, consideration of the petitioners has been made in regard to allotment of the shops in the Kukarkhera Mandi in the Meeting of the Allotment Committee dated 16.05.2024 and

[2025:RJ-JP:36359]

[CCP-855/2024]

(3 of 4)

it was found that the petitioners are not eligible for the allotment of the shops, in view of the reasons given in the Minutes of the said Meeting.

¶32

Considered the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶33

Vide order dated 28.02.2024, the Court under the assurance of the counsel for the respondents that the process of consideration of the petitioners for allotment of the shops in Kukarkhera Mandi, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order, disposed of the writ petition. The order of the Court was for completing the process of consideration of the petitioners for allotment of the shops in Kukarkhera Mandi.

¶34

From the document Annexure R3/1 placed on record alongwith the reply/compliance report supplied by the respondent No.3, the Meeting was conveyed on 16.05.2024, wherein the cases of the petitioners were considered for allotment of the shops and they were not found to be entitled for allotment of the shops for certain reasons as mentioned in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 16.05.2024.

¶35

The direction of the Court was only to the extent of making consideration of the cases of the petitioners for allotment of the shops and since the consideration has already been made by the Allotment Committee in its Meeting dated 16.05.2024, in opinion of the Court, the respondents have made substantial compliance of the Court order, therefore, no contempt is made out against the respondents.

¶36

Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed.

¶37

(4 of 4) [CCP-855/2024]

¶38

[2025:RJ-JP:36359]

¶39

However, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the Minutes of Meeting dated 16.05.2024, if they have any grievance as regards the same.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶41

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶42

ARTI SHARMA /118

M/S O.P. Trading Company v. Shri Vaibhav Galria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S O.P. Trading Company v. Shri Vaibhav Galria

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

Saroj D/O Ratiram W/O Satyapal Vs Savitri Wife of Krishan Kumar

Moolchand Balai S/O Late Shri Ramuji Balai Vs Ganpati Vihar Vikas Samiti

Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole University Vs Shri Kuldeep Ranka Principal Secretary

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gangaram Meena S/O Late Mr. Netaram Meena, Vs Ranjit Singh S/O Late Shri Netaram Meena

Smt. Chandrakala W/O Ramdev Vs Shri Sumer Singh S/O Shri Bajranglal