Pankaj Raj S/O Shri Dulichand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2025CW/10956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract cancellation and blacklisting without notice or hearing violates natural justice; petitioner granted liberty to submit representation; impugned orders stayed for five weeks; fresh tenders restrained.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit representation within one week; respondents to decide representation within four weeks by reasoned speaking order; impugned orders stayed for five weeks; respondents restrained from inviting fresh tenders for four weeks or till disposal of representation. ¶¶20

Pankaj Raj S/O Shri Dulichand Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10956/2025

¶3

Pankaj Raj S/o Shri Dulichand, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Basai Kala Meerka Tehsil Kishangarhbass District Khairthal Tijara (Rajasthan) Sole Proprietor Of Firm M/s Raj Contractor

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary Cum Director, Department Of Local Self Bodies, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Deputy Director (Regional), Department Of Local Self Bodies C- Block, Behind Hawamahal, Badi Choupar, Jaipur 302002

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Khairthal District Khairthal Tijara (Rajasthan).

¶9

Prem Singh Meena S/o Unkown, Pradesh Sangathan Mahasachiv Kamgar Evam Karmchari K.k.c., Congress Comettee Karyalaya Chandpole, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya For Respondent(s) :

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

23/07/2025

¶15

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, by which contract of the petitioner has been cancelled and thereafter, the petitioner has been black-listed from participating in other tender processes.

¶16

[CW-10956/2025]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a contract was awarded to the petitioner to supply manpower and the same has been cancelled by passing the orders impugned and he has been blacklisted from participating in other tender processes. Counsel submits that the aforesaid orders have been passed by the respondents even without issuing any notice and granting any opportunity of hearing and straightaway the orders impugned have been passed, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of both impugned orders indicate that prior to passing of the same, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and straightaway the orders impugned have been passed. 5. It is settled proposition of law and principle of natural justice that before passing any adverse order, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given, but in the instant case, no such opportunity has been granted.

¶20

Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents within a period one week from today. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within above stipulated time, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter,

¶21

(3 of 3) [CW-10956/2025]

¶22

by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

For a period of five weeks, the impugned order should not be given effect.

¶24

Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

It goes without saying that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law.

¶26

For a period of four weeks/till disposal of the representation, whichever is earlier, the respondents are restrained from inviting fresh tenders.

¶27

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

KuD/41

Pankaj Raj S/O Shri Dulichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Raj S/O Shri Dulichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivraj Singh Rathore S/O Shri Tej Singh Rathod Vs Rani Geetika Kumari, Wife of Late Shri Arun Singh

Village Panchayat Kishan Ghaat Vs State of Rajasthan

Brij Mohan S/O Shri Kesra Vs Board of Revenue

Babu Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri Ramgopal Sharma Vs Mohammed Arif S/O Late Shafi Mohammed

Rasida Khatoon W/O Mainuddin Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gayatri Vidyapeeth for Nimt College of Nursing Vs the State of Rajasthan