M/S Rudra Security Suppliers Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Rudra Security Suppliers Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012 before the First Appellate Authority within fifteen days; the Authority to decide expeditiously (preferably within four weeks thereafter), affording due opportunity of hearing to all respective parties and ignoring the period of limitation; stay and pending applications disposed of, and any stay application submitted by the petitioner to be decided by the First Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the cancellation of its work order, could obtain interference through this writ petition despite the availability of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012.

Court's answer

The impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling the petitioner's work order is appealable under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not avail the statutory appellate remedy and had straightaway approached the Court by way of the instant writ petition.

Key takeaways

As a settled proposition of law, whenever an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available to a person, that person cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said appellate authority.ratio¶19
On the count of non-availment of the statutory remedy alone, the writ petition stands disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to file the statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012 before the First Appellate Authority within fifteen days.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14502/2025, order dated 19/09/2025 by Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. M/s Rudra Security Suppliers (proprietor Mahesh Kumar; counsel Harendra Singh Sinsinwar) challenged the respondents' order dated 25.08.2025 whereby respondent No. 2 (Panchayat Samiti, Bakani, District Jhalawar) cancelled the work order issued to it for supply of manpower under an e-tender, contending that the cancellation occurred without any notice or opportunity of hearing. Finding the cancellation appealable under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, and applying the settled proposition that an available statutory appellate remedy cannot be bypassed, the Court disposed of the petition on that count alone, granting liberty to file the statutory appeal within fifteen days before the First Appellate Authority, which is to decide expeditiously (preferably within four weeks), affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties and ignoring the period of limitation. Stay and pending applications stand disposed of; any stay application moved by the petitioner is to be decided by the First Appellate Authority in accordance with law. No precedent was cited.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14502/2025

M/s Rudra Security Suppliers, Through Proprietor Mahesh Kumar Aged About 33 Years Son Of Shri Nanu Ram, Resident Of Village Puniyakhedi, Opposite Government School, Post Karalgaon Bakani District Jhalawar.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

Panchayat Samiti, Bakani District Jhalawar, Through Its Block Development Officer

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) :

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

19/09/2025

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the respondents by which the work order issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 issued E-tender notice inviting bid for supplying the men power. Counsel submits that the bid offered by the petitioner was accepted and thereafter work order was issued in his favour, which was subsequently been cancelled by the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice and without giving him

[CW-14502/2025]

(2 of 2)

any opportunity of hearing, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid order passed by the respondent No.2 is appealable under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act of 2012) but without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition.

It is the settled proposition of law that whenever an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available with a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said authority.

On this count alone, the present writ petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012 before the First Appellate Authority within a period of fifteen days. It is expected from the First Appellate Authority to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, ignoring the period of limitation.

Stay application and all pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.

In case, any stay application is submitted by the petitioner, the same would be decided by the First Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Ashu/28