United Educational Society Vs Rajasthan Skill and Livelihood Development Corporation

[2025:RJ-JP:31006]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8943/2025

United Educational Society, Through Its Chairman Mr Kunwar Pal Singh Age About 65 Years, Having Office At Nimt Campus, 41, Knowledge Park 1, Pari Chowk, Greater Noida.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Skill And Livelihood Development Corporation, Emi Campus, J-8-A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur Through The Chairmen And Managing Director.

¶8

The General Manager And Scheme Oic Ddugky, Rajasthan Skill And Livelihood Development Corporation, Emi Campus, J-8-A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur.

¶9

The General Manager (Admin), (Coo-Ddugky), Rajasthan Skill And Livelihood Development Corporation, Emi Campus, J-8-A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶13

Judgment

¶14

11/08/2025

¶15

Present petition is filed assailing the recovery made in terms of impugned order dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-17). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a sum Rs.66 lakhs approximately is made subject to recovery. It is further submitted that as per the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem, an opportunity of hearing is mandatorily to be given.

¶16

In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Private

[2025:RJ-JP:31006]

[CW-8943/2025]

(2 of 3)

Limited reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 . While placing reliance upon the same, it is submitted that availability of arbitration clause will not act as a bar to invoke of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil remedies.

¶21

Having heard the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court has taken note of the fact that as per Clause 9 i.e. the arbitration clause which reads as under:

¶22

“ 9. Arbitration and Applicable Laws

¶23

9.1. The parties hereby agree that any controversy, claim or dispute in connection with this MoU, and which cannot be resolved amicably shall be referred to the Board of Directors of Rajasthan Skill and Livelihoods Development Corporation in the State and later to the Empowered Committee of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.

¶24

9.2. All disputes shall be resolved as per the Government of India policies and applicable India Laws.”

¶25

While analyzing the afore-reproduced and the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended, it is noted that as per Section 9 and 17 of the Act of 1996, there is an opportunity with the litigant/party to the arbitral dispute to approach the competent Court seeking interim protection.

¶26

In the present matter, it is analyzed that bank guarantee is already invoked qua the respondent to the tune of Rs.27 lakhs approximately and no alternative remedy is availed; that the

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:31006]

[CW-8943/2025]

matter consists of certain disputed questions of fact; that after accepting and arriving at consensus as per the agreement, the writ jurisdiction is straightaway availed. However, it is settled position of law that when effective, efficacious remedy is available and there are disputed questions of fact, the writ court ought not to interfere. Moreover, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to unamended legal provisions, and is under distinguishable factual narrative, hence not applicable upon the matter at hand. Therefore, no interference is called for vis-avis the order dated 21.05.2025.

¶31

In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum, if deemed essential in future, as per the provisions of law. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

JKP/27

United Educational Society v. Rajasthan Skill and Livelihood Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Educational Society v. Rajasthan Skill and Livelihood Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Shukla Son of Shri Brij Bihari Shukla Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Surendra Mohan Tiwari Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hotam Singh S/O Shri Kundan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dalpat Singh Naruka S/O Lt. Shri Rajendra Singh Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (Riico)

Dataram Meena S/O Shri Vijay Singh Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan