HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1420/2019

M/s. Mohan Traders, Through Its Proprietor Rajkumar Chitora

S/o Shri Pyar Chand Aged About 50 Years, R/o 144, Krishi Mandi

District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Raj. Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd., Through Its

Managing Director, 237, Second Floor, Nehru Sahkar

Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.

2.

The Directors And Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department

Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Ambedkar Bhawan,

Civil Lines Crossing, Jaipur.

3.

Administrator And Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. N.M.Lodha, Senior Advocate with

Mr.V.D.Dadhich

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Dhanpat Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

1 ^st April, 2021

PER HON’BLE MR. SANGEET LODHA,J.

1.

This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated

30.10.19 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the

writ petition preferred by the appellant questioning the legality of

order dated 17.10.19 passed by the Managing Director, Rajasthan

Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited (‘CONFED’), Jaipur,

whereby while withdrawing the certificate of satisfactory

(2 of 10)

[SAW-1420/2019]

completion of the work, the appellant has been blacklisted and

debarred from entering into business with CONFED for a period of

three years.

2.

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the appellant, a

proprietorship concern, engaged in sales and supply of grains,

pulses and other commodities was awarded the contract by the

CONFED for supply of specified branded items as per the bid

conditions all over Rajasthan in hostels/residential schools of

Social Justice & Empowered Department. The agreement was

executed between the appellant and CONFED on 13.7.16 which

was valid upto 15.7.17. The appellant was served with the notice

dated 25.7.17 alleging that the appellant had submitted the bills

of 13 challans for payment twice with intention to derive double

benefit. Yet another notice dated 1.6.17 was issued with the

similar allegation and explanation was sought. The appellant

submitted the explanation vide communication dated 11.7.17.

Thereafter, the term of the contract was extended upto 15.10.17.

On 2.1.19, a certificate of satisfaction completion of supply in

terms of the contract was issued to the appellant by the Managing

Director, CONFED. Later, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in

the back of the appellant, vide order dated 17.10.19 issued by the

Managing Director, CONFED, the certificate of completion of

satisfactory supply of the commodities issued as aforesaid was

withdrawn and the appellant was debarred from entering into

contract with the CONFED for a period of three years.

3.

Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.19, the writ petition

preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned

Single Judge by the order impugned on the ground of availability

(3 of 10)

[SAW-1420/2019]

of remedy of appeal, observing that the writ petition involve a

horde of disputed question of fact and therefore, the Court is not

inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

4.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant

contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in

dismissing the appeal on the ground of availability of remedy of

appeal. Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of

Section 38 of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act,

2012 (for short “RTPP Act”), learned Senior counsel submitted that

the appeal as provided under Section 38 of the RTPP Act is

available in respect of the dispute relating to initial bidding

process and not in respect of the dispute that may