Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vprpl-Ksipl Bkn Jv vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2026
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10651/2026
CNR: RJHC010479732026
URN: CW / 19465U / 2026
Vprpl-Ksipl Bkn Jv
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 983/2026
CNR: RJHC010048482026
URN: CW / 1777U / 2026
Vishnu Prakash R Punglia Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8878/2026
CNR: RJHC010395302026
URN: CW / 16319U / 2026
Vishnu Prakash R Punglia Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samar Bansal, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Himanshu Choudhary
Mr. Aaditya Soni, Mr. Pradyumn Singh,
Mr. Reddy Amar, Mr.Aditya Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG
assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari &
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali (through VC)
Mr. B.P. Bohra, Sr. CGC with
Ms. Divyanshi Thanvi & Mr. Pramod
Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
14/07/2026
1. In the instant batch of matters, the cases were heard at
length. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bansal, appearing for the
petitioner, addressed the preliminary objections raised by the
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 02:41:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 09:33:19 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-10651/2026]
learned ASG. In the present matter, it is submitted that the
impugned action is having an effect at Jodhpur, and it
constitutes a part of the cause of action arising within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court at Jodhpur. It is further
submitted that the bank guarantees, the encashment
whereof had been stayed by way of interim protection, were
issued, and are liable to be invoked through the petitioner’s
bankers situated at Jodhpur. Therefore, the consequences of
the impugned action would also ensue at Jodhpur, which fact
is borne out from the record.
2. Further, it is submitted that as per the settled position of law
laid down in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of
India (2004) 6 SCC 254, National Textile Corporation
Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s Haribox Swalram & Ors. (2004) 9
SCC 329, and the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 873/2023,
territorial jurisdiction is maintainable in similar facts and
circumstances. Learned counsel has further relied upon
Clauses 61 and 64 of the General Terms and Conditions of
the Contract and submitted that the present dispute falls
within the exceptions to the arbitration clause.
3. It is also contended that although an alternative remedy
before the civil court may be available, the settled position of
law, as laid down in ABL International Ltd. v. Export
Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2004) 3
SCC 553 and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107, is that a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 02:41:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 09:33:19 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-10651/2026]
even where disputed questions of fact are involved,
particularly where the action complained of is arbitrary, mala
fide, affects public interest, and ex parte decisions have been
taken without considering the petitioner’s objections and
representations. Thus, judicial review is permissible in the
present matter as the impugned action is ex facie arbitrary
and unsupported by any justifiable reasons.
4. It is also submitted that, despite the petitioner being a bona
fide performer, no drawings, requisite approvals, or
obligations on the part of the respondent-Railways were ever
furnished. In support of the said contention, reliance is
placed upon the recent judgment of this Court reported as
2026 SCC OnLine Raj 3549 : JCL Infra Private Limited
v. Jaipur Development Authority.
5. Per contra, the learned ASG, assisted by learned Senior
Counsel Shri Bharat Vyas and Mr. Joshi, raised preliminary
objections, qua maintainability of the present petition. It is
submitted that the existence of a cause of action under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be examined
on a real and substantial basis, and not on the artificial
creation of a fractional cause of action. According to the
respondents, the alleged impact of the impugned action
must be substantial and not merely incidental. It is further
submitted that in the present matters, the contract was
executed at Jaipur, the railway doubling project is situated
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court,
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, and the registered office of the
concerned respondent is also situated there. Thus, merely
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 02:41:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 09:33:19 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-10651/2026]
because the petitioner is a corporate entity having an office
at Jodhpur does not confer territorial jurisdiction upon this
Court. According to the respondents, the filing of the present
writ petition before this Bench amounts to forum shopping.
In support of the said submission, reliance was placed upon
ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu: (1994) 4 SCC 711, State Of
Rajasthan & Ors vs Swaika Properties & Anr. : (1985)
3 SCC 217, and Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.
(2002) 1 SCC 567.
6. It is next submitted that in matters involving disputed
questions of fact, particularly disputes relating to delay,
service of notices, and contractual obligations where time is
of the essence in infrastructure projects, the Court should be
slow in entertaining a writ petition. Further, reliance is placed
upon the judgment of this Court passed in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ, 2025 : M.K. Singh Infrastructure v. Union
of India & Codel Corporation, West Central Railway.
7. It is further submitted that the issue as to whether the
arbitration clause exists or not, and whether the dispute falls
within the exception clause, stands concluded by the Division
Bench judgment in D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2024 :
Devendra Singh v. Union of India, wherein it has been
held that once an arbitration clause exists, the question
whether the dispute falls within the exception clause is itself
a matter to be decided by the learned Arbitrator. Such an
issue cannot be adjudicated by the Court at the threshold
while considering the maintainability of the writ petition.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 02:41:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 09:33:19 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-10651/2026]
8. In support of the contentions made insofar qua non-
maintainability of the petitions, reliance is placed upon the
ratio encapsulated in M/s TPS Marine v. Andaman and
Nicobar Administration, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 287, and
Vasisth Construction v. General Manager, Railway, SLP
(C) No. 258/2023, in support of the plea of non-
maintainability. It is lastly submitted that disputed questions
of fact arise in the present matter; notices were duly served
in accordance with the contractual clauses; time was the
essence of the contract; the work was required to be
completed within a period of 24 months; and only 27% of
the work had been executed, till now.
9. Heard.
10. On account of paucity of time, the hearing could not be
concluded. With the consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties, the matters shall continue to be heard, on
the next date of hearing.
11. As the matters pertain to infrastructure projects, namely the
upgradation of Bikaner Railway Station, doubling of the
railway line, and considering the urgency involved, it is
directed, with the consent of the parties, that the matters be
listed for final hearing, in the supplementary cause list
tomorrow, i.e., 15.07.2026.
12. Further, as substantial arguments are heard by this Court,
the instant matters are admitted, and marked as part-
heard.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
1-Arun/- compl.
(Uploaded on 15/07/2026 at 02:41:07 PM)
(Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 09:33:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
