Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 719 (RAJ)

Sushila Devi Private Iti v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-11

CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2025
Order : 1. Heard on stay application. 2. Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-ITI has drawn the Court’s attention to the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7378/2020 and other connected matters , relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (i) That the colleges which were covered during the period for the Session 2014 to 2017, could not have been compelled to give bank guarantee. (ii) That the private ITIs colleges which were established or which were already running from the Session 2018 onwards, are required to give bank guarantee as desired by Government of India and implemented by the Government of Rajasthan. (iii) The interim orders passed by this Court in respect of petitioner-Colleges established or running prior to 2018 will govern their cases & no insistence will be made to pay bank guarantee and all those Colleges which have got interim orders for the Session 2018 onwards, will have to deposit the bank guarantee as desired by the respondents.” 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 02.12.2020 passed in Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI’s case (supra) was challenged before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court by one of the co-petitioners, namely, The Deshraj Pvt. ITI, whose writ petition, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14078/2016 : The Deshraj Pvt. ITI, was also part of the same bunch led by Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI’s case (supra) and came to be decided accordingly, vide the said order dated 02.12.2020. 2.2 The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 18.07.2023 passed in The Deshraj Pvt. ITI & Ors. v. State & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.147/2021, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of the judgment dated 18.07.2023 reads as follows: “7. Accordingly, in light of the above, the argument(s) raised by the appellants qua the lack of jurisdiction on part of the State Government to issue the impugned order imposing the requirement to furnish the performance bank guarantee behest of any rule or provision, is not tenable. 8. The operative portion of the judgment dated 18.07.2023 reads as follows: “7. Accordingly, in light of the above, the argument(s) raised by the appellants qua the lack of jurisdiction on part of the State Government to issue the impugned order imposing the requirement to furnish the performance bank guarantee behest of any rule or provision, is not tenable. 8. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. Therefore, no interference with the impugned order dated 02.12.2020 is warranted. 9. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 3. Upon being asked, Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the Bank Guarantee issue dealt with in both the cases i.e. Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI (supra) and The Deshraj Pvt. ITI (supra) pertains to sessions and not to opening of the colleges. 3.1 Mr. Choudhary further contends that the cases of Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI (supra) and The Deshraj Pvt. ITI (supra) were not dealing with the proposition of Bank Guarantee for the purpose of opening of such Private ITI prior to 2018. 4. This Court however, on a bare reading of the order passed by learned Single Judge in the case of Guru Kripa Pvt. ITI (supra) and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of The Deshraj Pvt. ITI (supra), which are against the same orders and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has categorically directed that the requirement of Bank Guarantee shall not apply to colleges for Session 2014 to 2017, and therefore, at this stage of hearing the stay petition, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case for passing of stay order in favour of the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the stay petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that during pendency of the appeal and until final disposal thereof, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant for recovering Bank Guarantee for Private ITI College, which had opened prior to the year 2018. 5. Accordingly, the stay petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that during pendency of the appeal and until final disposal thereof, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellant for recovering Bank Guarantee for Private ITI College, which had opened prior to the year 2018. It is however, made clear that this order shall not prejudice the rights of respondents to make their final submissions in the case, wherein appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the learned Additional Advocate General at length. 6. List the appeal on 24.03.2025.