Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1360 (RAJ)

Ram Traders v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-29

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. For the reasons stated in the application No.3/2022 filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 for taking documents on record, the same is allowed. The documents appended with the application are taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed an application dated 27.04.2022 seeking amendment in the writ petition which is yet to come on record and hence, the matter may be adjourned. 3. Opposing the prayer, learned Advocate General submitted that there is an ex parte interim order dated 03.03.2022 operating against them and the matter was posted for final disposal at this stage by this Court on the request of the learned counsels for the respective parties. He submitted that petitioner was granted time by this Court vide its order dated 22.04.2022 to satisfy it that even when the writ petition is suffering from the vice of not only suppression of material fact; but, of containing false averments also having important bearing on the issue; still, this Court is obliged to enter into the merits of the case in its writ jurisdiction. Learned Advocate General submitted that to circumvent the aforesaid order, an application seeking amendment has been filed with a request for adjournment of the matter. Learned AG submitted that in case the matter is adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, their application for vacation of ex parte interim order may kindly be heard as the State is facing great hardship on account of interim order dated 03.03.2022 which is prejudicial to the public interest also as the excavation and uploading of pond ash is hampered causing huge environmental damage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has passed the interim order dated 03.03.2022 taking into consideration that without termination of contract in its favour granted by the respondents vide letter of award dated 08.06.2020 for a period of 36 months, they have issued a second contract in favour of the respondent No.6 vide letter of award dated 19.01.2022 which was impermissible under the terms of contract. He submitted that averments in the writ petition contained in Para 9 has to be read in consonance with Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of contract which speaks of termination of contract in favour of the petitioner before the work under the contract can be awarded in favour of any other person. He submitted that averments in the writ petition contained in Para 9 has to be read in consonance with Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of contract which speaks of termination of contract in favour of the petitioner before the work under the contract can be awarded in favour of any other person. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise also, the documents placed by the respondents on record, cannot be said to have any bearing on the issue unless contract awarded in its favour is terminated. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.; (2004) 7 SCC 166 & Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.; (2007) 6 SCC 120 . 5. Per contra, learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has, in the memo of writ petition, not only suppressed the material fact; but, has also made false averments. He submitted that the petitioner was issued with successive letters/notices conveying complaints of not only overcharging but, also of not adhering to terms of contract by not loading the pond ash with diligence. Drawing attention of this Court towards the response made by the petitioner to some of the letters/notices, learned Advocate General submitted that therein it has been admitted that work under the contract could not be performed within time for the reasons which were not found to be plausible. He submitted that by suppressing the material facts, the petitioner has been able to obtain an interim order from this Court which deserves to be vacated. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.; (2010) 14 SCC 38 and Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors.; (2013) 11 SCC 531 . 6. Heard. Considered. 7. In Para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made following averments:- "That consequent to the award of excavation Petitioner started performing his obligations strictly in terms of contract dated 08.06.2020. It would be relevant to mention here that till date Petitioner is performing his duties at the given site with the diligences. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. In Para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made following averments:- "That consequent to the award of excavation Petitioner started performing his obligations strictly in terms of contract dated 08.06.2020. It would be relevant to mention here that till date Petitioner is performing his duties at the given site with the diligences. Moreover, till date Respondents have not issued any warning or show cause notice with regard to the work of Petitioner thus, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is discharging his duties with utmost sincerity." 8. Similar averments are made by the petitioner in ground H of the writ petition. 9. Thus, while the petitioner has made categorical statement that till date it has not been issued any warning or show cause notice with regard to work and it is discharging duties with utmost sincerity and due diligence, the documents placed by the respondents on record alongwith the application reveal otherwise. It is revealed that the petitioner was served with as many as 15 letters/notices on various occasions conveying either the complaint that it is overcharging the rate than agreed under the contract and/or it is not performing its work diligently; few of which were even responded by the petitioner. In view thereof, there is not an iota of doubt that the petitioner was well aware that it was issued several letters/notices by the respondents conveying deficiency in its working before filing of the writ petition but, still it made false averments as are contained in Para 9 and ground H of the writ petition. It is trite law that a person invoking equitable jurisdiction of this Court has to approach with clean hands. In view thereof, this Court, while adjourning the matter on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, deems it just and proper to vacate the ex parte interim order 03.03.2022. 10. Accordingly, the applications No.1/2022 & 2/2022 filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 and respondent No.6 respectively, are allowed. 11. The interim order dated 03.03.2022 is vacated. List the matter after three weeks as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner.