Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S Khodal Corporation vs West Central Railway … on 7 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:14404]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6148/2026
M/s Khodal Corporation, Viramgam, 7, Ramnagar Society, Ioc
Colony Road, Viramgam - 382150 Gujarat, India Through Its
Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shubham Hareshbhai
Patel Aged S/o Shri Hareshbhai Patel, Around 26 Years R/o
Viramgam, 7, Ramnagar Society, Ioc Colony Road, Viramgam -
382150 Gujarat
----Petitioner
Versus
1. West Central Railway, Through Its General Manager, Head
Quarter Office, Opposite Indira Market, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh -482001
2. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Western
Central Railway, Head Quarter Office, Opposite Indira
Market, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh -482001
3. Chief Project Manager (Cpm), West Central Railways, Drm
Office, Kota, Rajasthan - 324002.
4. Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-Ii), West Central
Railways, Drm Office, Kota, Rajasthan - 324002.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Singh Tanwar
Ms. Rajeshwari Tanwar
Mr. Adesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha with
Ms. Anima Chaturvedi for ASG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
07/04/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present
petition is filed assailing the illegal and arbitrary termination notice
dated 25.03.2026. It is submitted that a NIT (Notice Inviting
Tender) was issued on 13.02.2024 by the respondents; resultant
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:07:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:50:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14404] (2 of 5) [CW-6148/2026]
to which upon completing due formalities a letter of acceptance
was issued in favor of the petitioner, and as per terms and
conditions of the tender, petitioner furnished the required
Performance Bank Guarantee and also submitted the security
deposit. It is submitted that time was essence of the contract and
completion period of the work was nine months i.e. up to
15.01.2025.
2. It is contended that there was a delay on account of late
handover of the working site, and that these circumstances are
beyond the petitioner’s control, therefore, the petitioner has
sought extension of time vide letter dated on 30.12.2024. It is
further submitted that with Price Variation Clause (PVC), the
respondents themselves acknowledged the delay and essentials
were granted, however in spite of the same being done
respondents issued a seven days’ notice dated 23.01.2026 under
Clause 62 of the GCC, alleging inadequate progress.
3. Further, it is submitted that another seven days’ notice dated
20.02.2026 was issued alleging similar deficiencies, thereafter a
48 hours’ notice dated 28.02.2026 was also issued, threatening
rescission of the contract. It is submitted that the petitioner has
replied the said notice(s) on 28.02.2026, explaining that more
than 85% of the work is already completed, and that delays were
on the part of the respondents. It is submitted that in-between
the said period, the Commissioner of Railway Safety (CRS)
conducted the statutory inspection of the project on 18.03.2026
and the railway line was provisionally authorized on 21.03.2026
for public carriage of passengers at a speed of 75 kmph.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:07:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:50:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14404] (3 of 5) [CW-6148/2026]
4. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the conciliation attempt of invocation of bank
guarantee forfeited, qua the risk and cover of petitioner is
unjustified. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned
counsel has relied upon the ratio encapsulated in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1682: Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour V. Chief
Executive Officer & Ors., and 2016 (11) SCC 720: Gangotri
Enterprises V. Union of India and submitted that judicial review
is permissible in tender matters, especially qua the issue of bank
guarantee encashment.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the assertions made in the writ petition are
factually disputed. It is submitted that time was essence of the
contract, as also affirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, as the matter pertains to Railway department, and
there was a delay on the part of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, there is a
remedy before the Dispute Redressal Board i.e. qua conciliation
and thereafter the arbitration clause could be invoked, thence, in a
scenario where there are disputed questions of facts, judicial
review ought not be made and the remedy as under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may be adopted.
6. In support of the said submissions, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the ratio enunciated in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No.1245/2025 title MKC Infrastructure Ltd.
Vs. Union of India and Ors. wherein whilst placing reliance upon
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs.
Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:07:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:50:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14404] (4 of 5) [CW-6148/2026]
(BEST): AIR 2023 SC 2717 and Midnapore Peoples’ Coop.
Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors.: (2006) 5
SCC 399, the Court has opined that no interfere is to be made in
the termination proceedings.
7. Having heard the submissions made by learned counsel
representing the parties, scanning the material available on
record, and perusing the judgments cited at Bar, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the present writ petition for the following
reasons:
7.1 That disputed questions of facts are involved.
7.2 That there is an alternate available remedy as the
concerned agreement has an ‘arbitration clause’.
7.3 That as per settled position of law, where there are
disputed question of facts, appellate/writ courts should restrain to
interfere. The said view is made unambiguous, yet again, in the
ratio encapsulated in Tata Motors Limited (supra), the relevant
extract from which is reproduced hereinbelow:
“52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself
from imposing its decision over the decision of the
employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of
a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable
is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not
interfere in matters relating to tender or
contract. To set at naught the entire tender
process at the stage when the contract is well
underway, would not be in public interest.
Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage
may consume lot of time and also loss to the
public exchequer to the tune of crores of
rupees. The financial burden/implications on
the public exchequer that the State may have
to meet with if the Court directs issue of a
fresh tender notice, should be one of the
guiding factors that the Court should keep in
mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:07:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:50:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:14404] (5 of 5) [CW-6148/2026]decision of this Court in Association of Registration
Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in
(2005) 1 SCC 679.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8. Accordingly, and in view of the ratio encapsulated in MKC
Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the present writ petition is
dismissed. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner is desirous,
to avail the remedy as specified by the respondents, he is free to
choose the same. It is made clear that no prejudice be caused to
the petitioner on account of dismissal of the present writ petition.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK /s-230
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 12:07:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 08:50:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)