##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5588]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2337/2026

M/s Champat Singh Raju Singh Rajpurohit, Proprietorship Form

Through Its Proprietor Shri Champat Singh S/o Shri Raju Singh,

Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Safed Aakade Ke Pass, Gadan,

Mahabar Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Public Works

Department, Government O Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department,

Circle- Balotra, District Balotra.

4. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department

Division- Balotra, District Balotra.

5. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub

Division- Samdari, District Balotra.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh

For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

30/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was awarded a contract by the respondent Department for

construction of various missing link/non-patchable roads under

Package No. RJ-43-07/15 CR/State Fund/2025-26 in District

Balotra. He submits that pursuant to the issuance of the work

order, the petitioner commenced the work and approximately 50%

of the work was completed. However, the petitioner was informed

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:27:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 08:53:05 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5588] (2 of 3) [CW-2337/2026]

via telephonic communication on 21.01.2026 that the contract of

the petitioner has been terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prior to

cancellation of the contract, no opportunity of hearing was

afforded to the petitioner and even the decision to terminate the

contract was not duly communicated. It is submitted that the

petitioner was ready and willing to complete the entire remaining

work within a period of one month, however, the respondents

have taken a decision to float a fresh tender.

3. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has

preferred the present writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. This Court takes note of the fact that a work order was

issued in favour of the petitioner, wherein it was clearly stipulated

that the petitioner was required to commence the work from

08.10.2025 and complete the same by 07.02.2026. Vide

communication dated 06.11.2025, the petitioner was informed

that despite the stipulated date for commencement of work being

08.10.2025, the petitioner had failed to commence the work

within a period of one month.

6. After the aforesaid communication, the petitioner was served

with a notice dated 02.12.2025, informing him of the proposed

action of withdrawal/cancellation of the contract under Clauses 2

and 3 of the Contract Agreement. The said communication was

followed by a reminder dated 04.12.2025. As no satisfactory

response was received from the petitioner, the respondent

authorities invoked Clauses 2 and 3 of the Contract Agreement

and vide order dated 09.12.2025, proceeded to withdraw the

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:27:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 08:53:05 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5588] (3 of 3) [CW-2337/2026]

subject tender work from the petitioner along with imposing a

penalty amount as well as an additional performance security

amount.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said

proceedings were undertaken without giving any notice. This

Court does not find the said submission to be an acceptable

ground for entertaining the present writ petition.

8. Considering the fact that the petitioner failed to commence

the work as stipulated in the work order and further failed to

submit any satisfactory response pursuant to the communications

dated 06.11.2025 and 25.11.2025, this Court is of the view that

the respondents were fully justified in passing the order dated

09.12.2025 (Annexure-9) and in taking a decision to float a fresh

tender.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court

is not inclined to entertai