Dismissed

Amit Rohida S/O Shri Bherulal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Oct 2025CMA/4553/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction application in a pending commercial suit challenging blacklisting of a contractor. The court found no prima facie case since the ineligibility order and appeals had attained finality, and dismissed the appeal with a request to the trial court to decide the main suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Commercial Court requested to decide the main suit expeditiously.

Amit Rohida S/O Shri Bherulal Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:42917-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4553/2025

¶4

Amit Rohida S/o Shri Bherulal, Proprietor Amit Construction, Address 709, Pratap Nagar, C.a.d. Circle, Kota (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Kota (Rajasthan)

¶8

Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Address Office Of Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Kota Division Raj Bhawan Road, Civil Lines, Kota (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devkrishna Purohit For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶12

Order

¶13

27/10/2025

¶14

This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commercial Court, Kota dated 08.07.2025, whereby the application for Temporary Injunction has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the suit is pending, the blacklisting ought to have been stayed.

¶16

We find that prima facie the case is not made out in favour of the appellant as admittedly he did not challenge the order by which he was held ineligible to participate in the tendering process. The appeal thereto was also filed and the same was also dismissed and the second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the consequential action of blacklisting has been conducted. Since the debarment

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:42917-DB]

¶18

[CMA-4553/2025]

¶19

itself stands concluded, blacklisting is consequential and thus no prima facie case is said to be made out in favour of the appellant. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. Moreover, we are of the firm view that since the suit is pending and in the meanwhile if the final relief is granted, the very purpose of filing suit would stand frustrated.

¶20

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. However, we request the learned Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously.

¶21

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶22

Rahul/Diksha-8

Amit Rohida S/O Shri Bherulal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Rohida S/O Shri Bherulal 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

Dr. Pradeep Kumar S/O Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary Vs M/S Ganesh Shankar Pandey and Company

Mkc Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Union of India Vs No. 4154626 Ex Sep Net Ram S/O Shri Chatu Ram

The Union of India Vs No. 2847844 Ex Sep (Reservist) Maha Singh S/O Shri Jora Ram

M/S Mukesh Oil Mill Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax