Executive Engineer, Phed Division Vs Sachdeva Metal Works

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10026-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 292/2024

¶4

Executive Engineer, Phed Division, Suratgharh, Rajasthan. 2. Chief Engineer(Hq), Public Health Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan-2, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jal Bhawan-2, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sachdeva Metal Works, C-33, Focal Point Extension, Jhalandhar.

¶9

Arvinder Pal Singh, Partner Of Sachdeva Metal Works, C- 33, Focal Point Extension, Jhalandhar.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, with
	Mr. Manaswita Nakwaal &
	Mr. Rohan Mittal.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ashrut Sethi.

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

09/03/2026

¶15

The defects pointed out by the office are overruled.

¶16

Learned Additional Advocate General representing the appellants-State submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Executive Engineer, PHED &

¶17

Ors. v. Sachdeva Metal Works : D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1636/2013 and other connected appeals on 15.10.2025, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:

¶18

"7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the controversy involved herein is covered by the judgment rendered

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[2026:RJ-JP:10026-DB]

¶21

[CMA-292/2024]

¶22

in the case of M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. : (2023) 6 SCC 401 has specifically dealt with issue of the jurisdiction arising out of the Act of 2006 considering it to be a special law and the Act of 1996 to be a general law and also holding that the Act of 2006 would have precedence over the Act of 1996. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that considering the overall purpose, objects and scheme of the Act of 2006 and the unambiguous expressions used therein, the provisions of Chapter V of the Act of 2006 will have an effect overriding the provisions of the Act of 1996.

¶23

7.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment has also held that a private agreement between the parties also would not obliterate the statutory provisions and once the statutory mechanism under sub-section (1) of Section 18 is triggered by any party, it would override any other agreement independently entered into between the parties, in view of the non obstante clauses contained in sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 18 of the Act of 2006. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the provisions of Sections 15 to 23 have an overriding effect as contemplated under Section 24 of the Act of 2006 when anything inconsistent is contained in any other law for the time being in force. In the present case, the said legal proposition gives sufficient support to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

Thus, this Court relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (supra) finds that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

¶25

However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submits that on count of the issue of territorial jurisdiction, in accordance with the Act of 2006, the appellants will require some time to avail appropriate remedy and thus a reasonable time deserves to be given to them to approach the appropriate Forum at Jalandhar.

¶26

Consequently, the appeals are dismissed . However, in light of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants, pertaining to requirement of some time to approach the appropriate Forum, which this Court finds reasonable, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants in pursuance of the impugned orders, for a period of three months from today. All pending applications stand disposed of."

¶27

Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed in the light of the decision rendered vide order dated 15.10.2025 in Executive Engineer, PHED v. Sachdeva Metal Works's case (supra) on the same terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶28

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

88-Zeeshan/Rashmi

Executive Engineer, Phed Division v. Sachdeva Metal Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer, Phed Division v. Sachdeva Metal Works

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

Periphery Sangharsh Samiti Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deepti Chinaria Daughter of Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajendra Chaturvedi S/O Shri Suraj Mal (Conductor)