Dismissed¶33

Shri Radha Rani Foods v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2025CW/12215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debarment from railway tenders for three years; non-deposit of advance licence fee after grace period; delay and laches of about one and a half years; maintainability of writ petition in contractual disputes; judicial restraint in administrative action; Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651; North Western Railway, Jaipur Division; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12215/2025; Justice Sameer Jain; decided 19/08/2025; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Even after the issuance, cancellation and debarment order dated 15.01.2024, the petitioner had time to deposit the advance licence fee. ¶20

Shri Radha Rani Foods Vs Union of India — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:32536]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12215/2025

¶4

Shri Radha Rani Foods, Through, Shrimati Koshilya Rai W/o Ramswaroop Rai Having Office At Hansari Jhansi, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India- 284001

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through, Ceo And Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi

¶8

General Manager, North Western Railway, North Western Railway Headquarters Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan, India

¶9

Divisional Railway Manager, Jaipur Division, North Western Railway, North Western Railway Headquarters Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan, India

¶10

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Jaipur Division, North Western Railway, North Western Railway Headquarters Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur302017, Rajasthan, India

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶14

19/08/2025

¶15

By way of present petition, letter dated 15.01.2024 is put to challenge, whereby the respondents have debarred the petitioner from participating in any tender process for a period of three years.

[2025:RJ-JP:32536]

[CW-12215/2025]

(2 of 3)

In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said debarment is on account of the fact that the petitioner has not deposited the advance license fee, as per the domain scheduled and after the grace period which was awarded.

¶20

Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has noted that even after the issuance, cancellation and debarment order dated 15.01.2024, the petitioner had time to deposit the same; that no appropriate explanation is tendered by the petitioners qua delay in assailing the letter dated 15.01.2024. i.e., after a lapse of approximately one and a half years; that present dispute pertains to a contractual matter added by delay and laches, therefore, as no malafides are explained, invocation of the writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Tata Cellular v. Union of India and Ors.: (1994) 6 SCC 651. The relevant extract from Tata Cellular (supra) is reproduced herein below:

¶21

“In Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation: AIR 1994 SC 988 this Court held thus:

¶22

...the Government had the right to either accept or reject the lowest offer but that of course, if done on a policy, should be on some rational and reasonable grounds. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. this Court observed as under:

¶23

When the Government is trading with the public, 'the democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination in such transactions'. The activities of the Government have a public element and, therefore, there should be fairness and equality. The State need not enter into any contract with anyone but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:32536]

[CW-12215/2025]

The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

¶28

(2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.

¶29

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.

¶30

Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides.

¶31

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.”

¶32

(Emphasis supplied)

¶33

In light of the aforementioned, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶34

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶35

CHANDAN /17

Shri Radha Rani Foods v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Radha Rani Foods v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarachand S/O Shri Norang Singh Kaser Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Prabhu Dayal S/O Shri Daya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmat Lal Meena Son of Shri Nanagram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mst. Chhoti W/O Basanti Lal Vs Ramkhiladi S/O Prabhatya

Estate Officer Under Public Premises Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajmal S/O Chhagna Vs Union of India