M/S UNITED COAL CARRIER vs RAJASTHAN STATE MINES AND MINERAL LIMITED

Court: Rajasthan High Court
Decided on: 30-03-2026

<div> [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR </div><table><tbody><tr><td>D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15655/2024</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>M/s United Coal Carrier, Main Road, Po Jharia-82811, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand Through Authorized Representative Namely Arvind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Darshan Singh Rathore, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1-A, Maa Vaishnow Nagar, Yadav Farm, Jodi Farm, Jaipur-302012, India.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>----Petitioner</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Versus</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td></td><td>Rajasthan State Mines And Mineral Limited, 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur-313004 Through Chairman.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td></td><td>Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mine And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur, Rajasthan.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td></td><td>Head Constable, Rajasthan State Mine And Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur, Rajasthan.</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>----Respondents</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>For Petitioner(s)</td><td></td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Shweta Chauhan and Mr. Tarang Gupta Mr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Bhadadra Mr. Vipul Dharnia</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>For Respondent(s)</td><td></td><td>:</td><td>Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Prateek Gattani Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Godara Mr. Ramavatar Sikhwal and Mr. Arpit Samaria for Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG Mr. Gopal Krishna Chhangani Ms. Simran Mehta Mr. Vishal Singh Mr. Harsh Shekhawat Mr. Vinay Jain Mr. Darshan Jain Mr. Sunil Purohit</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Reportable Order (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (2 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 16/03/2026 Pronounced on : 30/03/2026 (Per Sunil Beniwal, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order/communication dated 24.12.2023 (Annexure-38) issued by Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (‘RSMML’), whereby the tender contract relating to “Loading of limestone gitti of various sizes into tippers/dumpers from crusher hopper(s) and/or different stacks lying at the company's Sanu mines, District Jaisalmer, its transportation from the mines to the railway siding at Sanu Railway Station, and its unloading, stacking, watch & ward, and mechanized loading of limestone gitti into railway wagons using front-end loaders etc.”, which had been awarded to the petitioner, was terminated. Further, the petitioner’s security deposit was forfeited and the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of three years. 2. The brief facts of the case are that RSMML issued a Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’) dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure-3) for the aforesaid work. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared the L-1 bidder. A Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.07.2023 and an addendum was issued on 20.07.2023 (Annexure-6 colly). In the said Letter of Acceptance, it was stated that the work would be executed through petitioner’s M/s Jai Tanot Mata Mining and Transportation Co-operative Society, therefore, an agreement dated 16.08.2023 (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (3 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] (Annexure-8) was executed between the said Co-operative Society and RSMML with respect to the tender work. 2.1 The tender in question was challenged by M/s PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd., one of the unsuccessful bidders, by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8853/2023. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 13.07.2023 (Annexure-9). A special appeal, being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 666/2023, preferred against the said order, was also dismissed. Although the order was never formally passed, the order passed orally in the special appeal was subsequently challenged before the Apex Court, and vide order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure-10), the matter was remitted back to this Court on the administrative side as the detailed order had not been uploaded on the website. 2.3 In the meanwhile, the petitioner took steps to initiate the work. However, due to hindrances and obstructions caused by the Jaisalmer Truck and Dumper Association, the work could not be commenced. The petitioner sought assistance from RSMML and also lodged criminal complaints against the said Association. Since no effective progress was made, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14178/2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2023 with a direction to decide the petitioner’s representation and to ensure that the lawful transportation fleet of the petitioner was not harmed due to unlawful competition or illegal pressure from any person. 2.4 Since no satisfactory action was taken thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being S.B. Writ Contempt No. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (4 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] 1248/2023. The said contempt petition came to be dismissed on 21.01.2026 after recording the submission of the respondent/State that the order dated 27.09.2023 had been duly complied with and that a temporary police outpost had been established at Village Sonu to maintain law and order. It was also submitted that the deployed police constables would be responsible for ensuring complete security arrangements and maintaining law and order in and around the industrial units situated in the vicinity of Village Sonu. 2.5 Since the requisite amount of work, as stipulated under the contract conditions, could not be carried out, the petitioner was issued various communications (Annexure-36 colly) directing it to meet the prescribed criteria of work production, failing which action would be initiated against it in terms of the contract. The petitioner responded to all such communications (Annexure-37 colly), highlighting that the prevailing law and order situation was hampering the execution of the work. 2.6 On 21.12.2023 (Annexure-29), the petitioner was advised to attend the office of the Sanu Limestone Mines, Jaisalmer on 23.12.2023 to discuss the course of action for dispatching the required quantity of limestone gitti to the Railway Siding at Sonu in view of the prevailing law and order issues at Sanu Limestone Mines, and to submit its written statement in this regard. 2.7 Thereafter, vide the impugned order/communication dated 24.12.2023 (Annexure-38), the petitioner’s contract was terminated under Clause 4.86 of the contract. The security deposit amount was also ordered to be forfeited, which included the (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (5 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] additional performance security of Rs. 5.27 crores in the form of a bank guarantee, bid security of Rs. 411.84 lakhs in the form of a bank guarantee, and the remaining security deposit amount to be recovered from the amount payable to the petitioner or otherwise from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was banned/blacklisted from participating in future tenders of the company for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the communication, i.e., 24.12.2023. 2.8 Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. Sudhir Gupta, contended that the contract was terminated primarily on two grounds: first, the petitioner commenced the work with a delay of 53 days, i.e., on 07.10.2023; and second, after commencement, the petitioner failed to execute transportation and loading in accordance with the quantities stipulated under the tender schedule. 3.1 With regard to the first reason i.e. the delay in commencement of work, it was submitted that the delay was not deliberate. Rather, it was occasioned by a force majeure situation, created due to obstruction by the truck union / association, which prevented the petitioner from commencing the work. It was contended that, in terms of Clause 4.65 of the NIT governing force majeure, the petitioner cannot be held to be in default. 3.2 Qua the deficit in the work executed by the petitioner after commencement, learned Senior counsel submitted that the work could only be initiated in certain parts of the site and was carried out under restricted conditions. The operations were limited to (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (6 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] daytime and required police assistance, as the obstructions caused by the truck union / association continued to subsist. 3.3 To substantiate the above submissions reliance was placed on note-sheet drawn by concerned officers whereby it was acknowledged that force majeure situation was prevailing on account of which the petitioner could not initiate the work and execute the expected work in terms of the tender conditions. Reference was made to the Department’s note-sheets dated 09.11.2023, 16.11.2023, 26.12.2023, and 03.01.2024; the letters sent by the Department to the Superintendent of Police and the Collector on 14.08.2023, 05.09.2023, 22.09.2023, 23.09.2023, 02.10.2023, 23.10.2023, 09.11.2023, 06.12.2023, and 21.12.2023; and the criminal complaints so also FIRs lodged on various occasions, particularly on 08.11.2023, 10.11.2023, and 13.12.2023. 3.4 It was further contended that the petitioner was not the only contractor to face such law and order issues; rather, similar difficulties had been encountered by previous contractors as well, who had approached this Court seeking police assistance to remove obstructions caused by the truck union/association. On an earlier occasion, another contractor had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6556/2019 (M/s LR Mining and Transportation Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) seeking similar relief in respect of the same work, which was disposed of by this Court on 10.05.2019. Learned counsel also pointed out to the order dated 14.08.2020 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7055/2020 (PMP (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (7 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein PMP Infratech had also faced a comparable situation and sought relief before this Court, though the writ petition was subsequently withdrawn. Nonetheless, the existence of such law and order issues stands substantiated. 3.5 While challenging the punishment inflicted in the nature of forfeiture of security deposit so also blacklisting of the petitioner alongwith termination of contract, learned Senior counsel submitted that on earlier occasions qua the same tender work, when tender was awarded to PMP Infratech, similar circumstances had arisen, leading to delay in commencement of work so also shortfall in execution of work. While relying upon note-sheet of the tender awarded to PMP Infratech, more particularly Note No. 62 and 63, learned counsel submitted that in that case, the RSMML treated it as force majeure situation and waived off the penalty imposed. The said notes reproduced below for ready reference: “XXX XXX XXX In this regards, it is submitted that the work of "Loading of Limestone into trucks/ dumpers from company sanu limestone mines and its transportation from mines to railway siding at Sanu railway station was awarded to M/s PMP Infratech pvt ltd. (M/s PM Infra & Transportation Society Ltd). As per the provision of tender the society has to commence the work within 30 days from the date of issuance of DLOA i.e. 08.07.2020. But due to hindrance created by local transport unions the work could not be commenced by the society, later with the help and support of local administration & police, the commencement of work was started under police protection w.e.f. 16.08.2020 (refer para N/ 9-N/17 for reference). The narrated situations were beyond the control of society, therefore the compensation for delay in commencement is not attributable to society. It is pertinent to mention here that in last tender for the same work (Cont-15/18-19) in the similar situations and circumstance the (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (8 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] compensation was waived by the competent authority on the basis of the opinion of Sr. Advocate of high Court, wherein it was opined that "commencement of work was made possible only due to joint efforts of society, district administration and RSMML and concluded that it will not be lawful to impose penalty on the contractor"(refer N/149 & onwards of the copy of note placed at R/54. In the instant case the situations are similar & the commencement was made possible unde police protection only, in view of this the request of SBU as per N/57 may be consider for competent approval for waive off compensation on account of delay in commencement of work due to un-avoidable reasons beyond the control of society. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 12.01.2021 (Gaurav Shrivastava) M (Cont)” Considering the above, imposing harsh penalty, inter alia, blacklisting of the petitioner is not warranted. 3.6 It was further submitted that the impugned order/communication has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 15.12.2023 was neither duly considered nor was any opportunity of personal hearing afforded prior to passing the impugned order. 3.7 Lastly, learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner’s contract is about to expire and is at its fag end, therefore, no purpose would be served by halting the petitioner’s work. Further, the respondent, RSMML, has issued a certificate dated 14.01.2026 in favour of the petitioner with respect to the tender work in question for the period from 01.07.2024 to 30.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that the assigned targets have been duly achieved and the petitioner’s performance is satisfactory. The said certificate also establishes the fact that once the law and order situation had been settled, the petitioner carried out the work (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (9 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] fulfilling the requisite target. Therefore, considering the same, the termination of the contract of the petitioner was not warranted along with imposition of penalty of blacklisting and forfeiture of the security deposit. 3.8 Learned Senior counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments : (i)- Blue Dreamz Advertising Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. : (2024) 15 SCC 264. (ii)- M/s Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation & Anr. : 2025 INSC 236. (iii)- Subodh Kumar Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer : 2024 SCC Online SC 1682. (iv)- UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd.. Vs. Food Corporation of India : (2021) 2 SCC 551. (v)- Isolators and Isolators Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. : (2023) 8 SCC 607. (vi) Om Gurusai Construction Co. Vs. V.N. Reddy & Ors. : 2023 SCC Online SC 1051. (vii)- M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd. : (2023) 2 SCC 703. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. Vinay Jain, appearing for RSMML submitted that the petitioner was afforded several opportunities to carry out the work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. However, the petitioner failed to do so. Therefore, considering the loss of revenue to the State, the impugned order/communication terminating the contract awarded to the petitioner was issued. 4.1 As per Clause 3.1 (vii) of the NIT, the petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of the nature of the work and the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the alleged law and order situation (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (10 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] could not be said to be beyond the control of the petitioner. The said clause reads as under : “vii. The tenderer shall be deemed to have examined the tender document, to have obtained his own information in all matters whatsoever that might affect the carrying out of the works at the schedules rates and to have satisfied himself to the sufficiency of his tender. Any error in description or quantity or omission in the Contract Document shall not vitiate the contract or release the Contractor from executing the work comprised in the contract according to specifications at the scheduled rates. The tenderer is deemed to know the scope, nature and magnitude of the works and requirement of materials, equipment, tools and labour involved, wage structures, conditions of service of Company's staff/workmen doing similar and same type of work etc and as to what all works he has to complete in accordance with the contract documents irrespective of any defect, omissions or errors that may be found in the contract documents. The Contractor shall be deemed to have visited site and surroundings, to have satisfied himself to the working conditions at the site, availability of water, electric power, labour etc, transportation facilities, probable sites for labour accommodation and store go-downs etc and all other factors involved in the execution of works.” 4.2 The petitioner has placed on record various communications exchanged between the parties regarding the non-execution of the work in accordance with the terms of the contract, as well as the opportunities granted to the petitioner to carry out production as per the contract. Therefore, firstly, it cannot be contended that the principles of natural justice were violated, as more than sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to perform the work, and secondly, the action taken was strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract and hence cannot be termed arbitrary. 4.3 Further, at the time when the impugned order / communication was issued, approximately five months had elapsed since the execution of the agreement between the parties. Despite such lapse of time, the petitioner had not shown any (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (11 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] improvement in performance, which ultimately led to the issuance of the impugned order. 5. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. Vikas Balia, appearing for PMP Infratech, who was impleaded as a party vide order dated 26.11.2024 solely to address legal issues, submitted that the contract between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and RSMML, is inherently determinable in nature. The petitioner, if aggrieved, has an appropriate remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963; therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5.1 It was further contended that the present writ petition raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated while exercising writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the writ petition has been filed at a belated stage, i.e., after S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024 filed by PMP Infratech had been allowed on 19.07.2024, whereby the order dated 26.12.2023, staying the operation of impugned order/communication 24.12.2023, was set aside. 5.2 Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner has erroneously invoked the force majeure clause. The force majeure conditions are governed by Clause 4.65 of the NIT, which enumerates specific contingencies such as statutory directions, civil commotion, fire, epidemics, war, acts of God, and formal governmental actions in the nature of law, order, proclamation, or ordinance. The said clause does not include retaliation or resistance by a truck union/association, nor does it encompass a general law and order situation. A plain reading of the clause makes it clear that a general law and order issue is not covered within its ambit. Furthermore, none of the specified contingencies (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (12 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] existed at the site. The petitioner was not prevented from reconciling with the truck union/association to ensure smooth execution of the work. Accordingly, the requirements of the force majeure clause are not satisfied, and the petitioner cannot seek to invalidate the termination of the contract on this ground. 5.3 Learned Senior counsel also pointed out that PMP had previously been awarded a tender for the same work and had faced a similar issue of resistance from the truck union / association, which was resolved within eight days. In contrast, the petitioner took several months to address the issue, clearly indicating lack of experience and inefficiency. It was emphasized that the petitioner did not possess relevant experience in transportation of industrial minerals, which was essential for the contract, and instead had experience only in transportation of fuel minerals. 5.4 It was further argued that the petitioner has selectively relied upon internal note-sheet recording observations in its favour, while deliberately ignoring communications issued by the Head Office at Udaipur, which clearly highlighted that sales were adversely affected due to the petitioner’s inaction. Furthermore, the petitioner was fully aware of the prevailing conditions at the site but failed to make adequate arrangements and did not possess the requisite fleet for transportation. Even otherwise, if the petitioner had indeed faced extreme resistance, transportation would have come to a complete standstill. However, transportation, though significantly below the expected level, was (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (13 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] not entirely halted. This demonstrates that the work was not impossible to perform. 5.5 Lastly, it was submitted that RSMML extended full support to the petitioner for a period of five months in order to facilitate commencement of work and achievement of targets. However, when the desired results were not achieved, the contract was terminated. The petitioner cannot now rely on such support as a ground to contend that the situation was beyond its control. 5.6 Learned Senior counsel, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments: (i)- Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. : (2024) 15 SCC 461. (ii)- M.P. Power Management Company Ltd., Jabalpur Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. : (2023) 2 SCC 703. (iii)- State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.K. Jose : (2015) 9 SCC 433. (iv)- Orrisa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bharati Industries & Ors. : (2005) 12 SCC 725. (v)- State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co. : (1997) 1 SCC 156. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Singhvi, appearing on behalf of PMP Infratech, submitted that RSMML suffered financial losses on account of the delay caused by the petitioner in commencing the work, as well as due to its failure to execute the work in accordance with the stipulated targets set out in the terms and conditions of the contract. He referred to the contents of the writ petition, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024 (PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. RSMML & Ors.), to submit that, from the date of execution of the agreement, i.e., 16.08.2023, till the filing of the (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (14 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] said writ petition, RSMML suffered a loss of Rs. 107.73 crores, Indian Railways suffered a loss of Rs. 538.65 crores, the Government of Rajasthan suffered a loss of Rs. 21.36 crores, and the Government of India suffered a loss of Rs. 44.88 crores. 7. While countering the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Acharya, appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the reply received to an RTI application filed by the petitioner. In the said application, a query was raised seeking the exact quantum of financial losses allegedly suffered by RSMML, the Railways, and SAIL on account of the failure of M/s United Coal Carriers and its associated society firm, M/s Jai Tanot Mata Mining and Transportation Co-operative Society, to execute the work in accordance with the LOI/tender conditions. 7.1 In reply, vide communication dated 12.02.2024, it was stated that the exact figures of financial loss to the company had not yet been finalised. In light of this response, learned Senior Counsel contended that the submission regarding the alleged losses is unsubstantiated, as the relevant data itself remains undetermined. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. A. UNDISPUTED FACTS : 9. Before delving into the merits of the writ petition, it would be apposite to lay out the undisputed facts of the case, which are as under: (i) An NIT was issued on 23.03.2023 for “Loading of limestone gitti of various sizes into tippers/dumpers from crusher hopper(s) (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (15 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] and/or different stacks lying at the company’s Sanu mines, District Jaisalmer, its transportation from the mines to the railway siding at Sanu Railway Station, and its unloading, stacking, watch and ward, and mechanized loading of limestone gitti into railway wagons using front-end loaders, etc.” (ii) On 30.06.2023, the petitioner was declared the L-1 bidder, having quoted the lowest price. (iii) The tender in question was challenged by M/s PMP Infratech; however, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8853/2023 was dismissed on 13.07.2023. (iv) A Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.07.2023, followed by an addendum dated 20.07.2023. (v) An agreement was executed between the petitioner and RSMML on 16.08.2023. (vi) The petitioner was required to commence work within 30 days from 17.07.2023; however, it failed to do so. (vii) The petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14178/2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2023 with a direction to decide the petitioner’s representation and to ensure that the petitioner’s lawful transportation fleet was not harmed due to unlawful competition or illegal pressure from any person. (viii) The petitioner thereafter filed S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1248/2023 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 27.09.2023, which came to be dismissed on 21.01.2026 after recording the submission of the respondent/State that the said order had been duly complied with and that a temporary police (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (16 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] outpost had been established at Village Sonu to maintain law and order. B. MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION : 10. This Court is mindful of the well-established legal principle that judicial intervention in technical domains, especially in matters relating to tenders, should be exercised sparingly. Nonetheless, the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court do not place an absolute bar on such intervention. They recognise specific exceptions where the exercise of writ jurisdiction is justified. Accordingly, where a case falls within those recognised exceptions, this Court is empowered to intervene. Further, if elements of arbitrariness or malafide conduct are evident, the Court cannot disregard them merely on the ground that the decision pertains to a technical or administrative sphere. 10.1 The Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. UOI; (1994) 6 SCC 651 observed as under: “93. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. committed an error of law 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or 5. abused its powers. 94. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case, shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under : (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (17 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness, (iii) Procedural impropriety. XXX XXX XXX The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.” 10.2 In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. UOI; (2020) 16 SCC 489 , the Apex Court after referring to various earlier pronouncements, observed as under: “19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (18 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. 20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.” 10.3 In the case of M.P. Power Management (supra), the Apex Court after discussing various pronouncements with regard to interference under writ jurisdiction, observed as under: (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (19 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] “82. We may cull out our conclusions in regard to the points, which we have framed : 82.1 It is, undoubtedly, true that the writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy. A matter, which lies entirely within a private realm of affairs of public body, may not lend itself for being dealt with under the writ jurisdiction of the Court. 82.2. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development Authority (supra) that in the case of a non-statutory contract the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and the decisions, which are purported to be followed, including Radhakrishna Agarwal (supra), may not continue to hold good, in the light of what has been laid down in ABL (supra) and as followed in the recent judgment in Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra). 82.3. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the Respondent-State in a case by itself to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary. 82.4. An action will lie, undoubtedly, when the State purports to award any largesse and, undoubtedly, this relates to the stage prior to the contract being entered into [See R.D. Shetty (supra)]. This scrutiny, no doubt, would be undertaken within the nature of the judicial review, which has been declared in the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651. 82.5. After the contract is entered into, there can be a variety of circumstances, which may provide a cause of action to a party to the contract with the State, to seek relief by filing a Writ Petition. 82.6. Without intending to be exhaustive, it may include the relief of seeking payment of amounts due to the aggrieved party from the State. The State can, indeed, be called upon to honour its obligations of making payment, unless it be that there is a serious and genuine dispute raised relating to the liability of the State to make the payment. Such dispute, ordinarily, would include the contention that the aggrieved party has not fulfilled its obligations and the Court finds that such a contention by the State is not a mere ruse or a pretence. 82.7. The existence of an alternate remedy, is, undoubtedly, a matter to be borne in mind in declining relief in a Writ Petition in a contractual matter. Again, the question as to whether the Writ Petitioner must be told off the gates, would depend upon the nature of the claim and relief sought by the Petitioner, the questions, which would have to be decided, and, most (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (20 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] importantly, whether there are disputed questions of fact, resolution of which is necessary, as an indispensable prelude to the grant of the relief sought. Undoubtedly, while there is no prohibition, in the Writ Court even deciding disputed questions of fact, particularly when the dispute surrounds demystifying of documents only, the Court may relegate the party to the remedy by way of a civil suit. 82.8. The existence of a provision for arbitration, which is a forum intended to quicken the pace of dispute resolution, is viewed as a near bar to the entertainment of a Writ Petition (See in this regard, the view of this Court even in ABL (supra) explaining how it distinguished the decision of this Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (1996) 6 SCC 22, by its observations in paragraph-14 in ABL (supra)]. 82.9. The need to deal with disputed questions of fact, cannot be made a smokescreen to guillotine a genuine claim raised in a Writ Petition, when actually the resolution of a disputed question of fact is unnecessary to grant relief to a writ applicant. 82.10. The reach of Article 14 enables a Writ Court to deal with arbitrary State action even after a contract is entered into by the State. A wide variety of circumstances can generate causes of action for invoking Article 14. The Court's approach in dealing with the same, would be guided by, undoubtedly, the overwhelming need to obviate arbitrary State action, in cases where the Writ remedy provides an effective and fair means of preventing miscarriage of justice arising from palpably unreasonable action by the State. 82.11. Termination of contract can again arise in a wide variety of situations. If for instance, a contract is terminated, by a person, who is demonstrated, without any need for any argument, to be the person, who is completely unauthorised to cancel the contract, there may not be any necessity to drive the party to the unnecessary ordeal of a prolix and avoidable round of litigation. The intervention by the High Court, in such a case, where there is no dispute to be resolved, would also be conducive in public interest, apart from ensuring the Fundamental Right of the Petitioner Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When it comes to a challenge to the termination of a contract by the State, which is a non-statutory body, which is acting in purported exercise of the powers/rights under such a contract, it would be over simplifying a complex issue to lay down any inflexible Rule in favour of the Court turning away the Petitioner to alternate Fora. Ordinarily, the cases of termination of contract by the State, acting within its (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (21 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] contractual domain, may not lend itself for appropriate redress by the Writ Court. This is, undoubtedly, so if the Court is duty- bound to arrive at findings, which involve untying knots, which are presented by disputed questions of facts. Undoubtedly, in view of ABL Limited (supra), if resolving the dispute, in a case of repudiation of a contract, involves only appreciating the true scope of documentary material in the light of pleadings, the Court may still grant relief to an applicant. We must enter a caveat. The Courts are today reeling under the weight of a docket explosion, which is truly alarming. If a case involves a large body of documents and the Court is called upon to enter upon findings of facts and involves merely the construction of the document, it may not be an unsound discretion to relegate the party to the alternate remedy. This is not to deprive the Court of its constitutional power as laid down in ABL (supra). It all depends upon the facts of each case as to whether, having regard to the scope of the dispute to be resolved, whether the Court will still entertain the petition. 82.12. In a case the State is a party to the contract and a breach of a contract is alleged against the State, a civil action in the appropriate Forum is, undoubtedly, maintainable. But this is not the end of the matter. Having regard to the position of the State and its duty to act fairly and to eschew arbitrariness in all its actions, resort to the constitutional remedy on the cause of action, that the action is arbitrary, is permissible (See in this regard Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212)). However, it must be made clear that every case involving breach of contract by the State, cannot be dressed up and disguised as a case of arbitrary State action. While the concept of an arbitrary action or inaction cannot be cribbed or confined to any immutable mantra, and must be laid bare, with reference to the facts of each case, it cannot be a mere allegation of breach of contract that would suffice. What must be involved in the case must be action/inaction, which must be palpably unreasonable or absolutely irrational and bereft of any principle. An action, which is completely malafide, can hardly be described as a fair action and may, depending on the facts, amount to arbitrary action. The question must be posed and answered by the Court and all we intend to lay down is that there is a discretion available to the Court to grant relief in appropriate cases. 82.13. A lodestar, which may illumine the path of the Court, would be the dimension of public interest subserved by the (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (22 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] Court interfering in the matter, rather than relegating the matter to the alternate Forum. 82.14. Another relevant criteria is, if the Court has entertained the matter, then, while it is not tabooed that the Court should not relegate the party at a later stage, ordinarily, it would be a germane consideration, which may persuade the Court to complete what it had started, provided it is otherwise a sound exercise of jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits in the Writ Petition itself. 82.15. Violation of natural justice has been recognised as a ground signifying the presence of a public law element and can found a cause of action premised on breach of Article 14. [See Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. (supra)].” 10.4 What can be discerned from the above observations is that, while the Court may not sit in appeal over the merits or correctness of a decision, it is certainly competent to examine the manner in which such decision has been arrived at. Put differently, the scope of judicial review extends to scrutinising the decision- making process, including the conduct of the authority and the basis on which the decision rests, to ensure compliance with the applicable legal framework so also Principles of natural justice. Where the process is tainted by illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, bias, or mala fide intent, the Court would be justified in invoking its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, although restraint is the norm in tender matters, it cannot be employed as a cover to legitimise actions that are patently unjust, unreasonable, or in violation of law. 10.5 Considering the above pronouncements, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein the challenge is not only to the rationality of the decision taken but also involves an alleged violation of the principles of (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (23 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] natural justice, the matter warrants consideration in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the present writ petition has been pending since 2024 and the petitioner’s contract is at a fag end, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by relegating the parties to an alternative forum. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of PMP Infratech has objected to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that it involves disputed questions of facts. 11.1 True it is that disputed questions of fact cannot ordinarily be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction, as held by the Apex Court in Orissa Agro Industries (supra), M.V. Vyavsaya (supra), and M.K. Jose (supra). However, an exception has been carved out by the Apex Court in M.P. Power Management (supra), as reproduced above, which provides that in cases involving actions that are unreasonable or irrational, and depending on the facts of each case, the discretionary writ jurisdiction may be exercised. 11.2 In the present case, upon consideration of the note-sheet placed on record, and further taking into account the fact that on earlier occasions indulgence had been granted by the Court while directing the authorities to provide police assistance to address the prevailing law and order situation, as well as the admission made by the respondent – RSMML in the contempt proceedings initiated by the present petitioner, by filing S.B. Writ Contempt No.1248/2023, acknowledging the existence of such law and order problems and the necessity of deploying police force to overcome the same, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention regarding maintainability. In view of these circumstances, this (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (24 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] Court does not deems it appropriate to accept the objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable on account of disputed questions of facts as it is rather an admitted position that the law and order situation was persisting at the site of work. 11.3 Furthermore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of PMP Infratech has contended that the petitioner lacked the requisite experience to deal with such unforeseen circumstances, particularly the law and order issues, and that this deficiency contributed to the petitioner’s inability to effectively execute the work. It has also been argued that similar law and order problems had arisen earlier; however, PMP Infratech had successfully resolved the same within a period of eight days. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner did not possess the requisite fleet strength for lifting and transporting minerals, which resulted in failure to adhere to the schedule prescribed under the tender conditions. 11.4 Though such arguments have been advanced on behalf of PMP Infratech, they are neither supported by the stand taken by RSMML in its reply, nor are they borne out from the reasons recorded in the termination order. In the absence of any such foundation in the pleadings or the impugned order, this Court finds no justification to embark upon an independent inquiry into these aspects for the purpose of adjudication. Also considering the fact that PMP Infratech was impleaded in the present writ petition vide order dated 26.11.2024 only to the extent to address this Court on legal issues. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (25 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] C. DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF WORK : 12. The principal challenge in the present writ petition is to the termination order dated 24.12.2023, whereby the contract agreement executed for “Loading of limestone gitti of various sizes into tippers/dumpers from crusher hopper(s) and/or different stacks lying at the company’s Sanu Mines, District Jaisalmer, its transportation from the mines to the railway siding at Sanu Railway Station, and its unloading, stacking, watch & ward, and mechanized loading of limestone gitti into railway wagons using front-end loaders, etc.” came to be terminated. 12.1 It is to be noted that the contract agreement was terminated primarily on two grounds: firstly, that there was a delay of 53 days in commencement of the work; and secondly, that the petitioner failed to execute the requisite quantity of transportation and loading in accordance with the tender schedule. The Letter of Acceptance was issued on 17.07.2023, and as per the tender conditions, the petitioner was required to commence the work within 30 days from the date of issuance of the same. While explaining the delay in commencement, the petitioner has placed reliance upon various note-sheets, the relevant extracts of which are reproduced herein-below for ready reference: “XXX XXX XXX 4) As per the terms and conditions of tender document (Refer Clause 5.4.10, 5.12.1 & 5.39) the cooperative society have to commenced the work within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of DLOA i.e., up to 16.08.2023, with requisite number of equipment's and machinery. While the cooperative society have commenced the transportation work on dated 08.10.2023 with the help of district administration under police custody in the compliance of honorable High Court, Jodhpur judgment dated (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (26 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] 27.09.2023. The copy of the High Court, Jodhpur judgment & intimation letter of the contractor are placed in the file at R/15 & R/ 16 respectively. 5) A note has been moved to higher management with all relevant references & record for consideration the late commencement of work for the period from 16.08.2023 to 07.10.2023 under force majeure clause of the tender document in light of third party (Local Truck Union) hindrance in transportation work in the same line of previous Transportation contracts which have faced similar conditions. In previous contract late commencement penalty have been waived off by the management. The copy of the file noting is placed in the file at R/38 for reference. 6) The contractor, M/s United Coal Carrier awarded the contract through open e-tender on dated 17.07.23. As soon as contract awarded, the local truck union approached to district administration for their demand regarding increase in transportation rate and deployment of transportation trucks/dumpers of their local truck union only, since then, the negotiations between contractor and truck union have been started and after prolong negotiations, it was failed. The local truck union is sitting on strike, nearby mine site and showing strong resistance for movement of contractor trucks. 7) Stoppage of work by third party i.e. Local Truck Union is the responsible for hindrance in work and in such situation any disturbance by third party in a lawful contract between two parties either of party cannot make responsible to other party. In above situation, force majeure conditions are prevailing completely up to 07.10.23. However partly situation is improved but due to time and locations restrictions by the Police department and district administration, the situations are still just like force majeure till the permission by police for 24 hours free movement of transportation work from all location of the mines without Police protection. XXX XXX XXX 12) The schedule quarterly target was not given to the cooperative society as the transportation work has been carried out with time and locations restrictions by the Police department and District Administration, Jaisalmer. The situations are still just like force majeure till the permission for 24 hours free movement of transportation vehicles of the contractor from all location of the mines without Police protection. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 09.11.2023 (Pramod Dabi) Manager (Mining & EIC) 14) Unit Head (LSU), Jaisalmer (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (27 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] May kindly peruse from Para 01/N to 13/N. The commencement of work was delayed due to: a. 15.08.2023: The previous contractor closed the work at Railway siding. b. 17.8.2023: Agitation and strike by Jaisalmer Truck & Dumper Operator Association with demand that contractor will work by truck unión fleet only with their demanded rate/negotiated rate with contractor, terms and condition. Such demands of truck union are not the terms & condition of tender and awarded contract. c. 18.08.2023: RSMML completed stock Survey at Railway Siding. d. 20.08.2023: RSMML Handed over the railway siding after survey of balance stock to the contractor. e. 27.09.2023: High Court Jodhpur given Judgment and directed to police department Jaisalmer to ensure that the lawful transportation fleet of the contractor is not harmed due to unlawful competition or illegal pressures from any person. A liberty is given to respondent truck union to take up all their issues regarding their rates /negotiations peacefully and lawfully with the contractor in case so required. f. 08.10.2023: Police department allowed to the contractor to start transportation work under police security in day light hours from limited locations. The time allowed by the police department is equivalent to about one shift working. Despite said limited allowed period and unexpected frequent disturbance by the union during the working hours, as on date the contractor has established the carrying capacity about 6700MT (6696 MT transported on 5.11.2023). That means, if contractor allowed for transportation 24 hours they will achieve required quantity argets by RSMML by their own fleets as per tender and availability of material or mines. g. 07.11.2023: The union is still on agitation and strikes at nearby place at mines and again forcefully stopped the work. The letter dated 08.11.2023 (R/39) was handed over to police station Ramgarh with copy to the Additional SP, Jaisalmer, briefed the issue with request to restrict such type of activity by the truck union and for resumption of work. h. The such type of unilateral demand by the local truck union become a practice whenever a new transportation contract awarded by the RSMML. RSMML is sufferer of such net of local truck union in past and present for Jong period. 15) In light of the above facts and beyond control situation, it is recommended that the delay in work and shortfall in quantity cannot be attributed to the Co-operative Society formed by the contractor as per the terms and condition of the tender and DLOA. The payment may be released as proposed at para 13/N by the EIC of contract. Sd/- 9.11.2023 (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (28 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] (D.S. Achaliya) Unit Head, LSU, Jaisalmer XXX XXX XXX 21) As per Tender Clause No.5.39, the Co-operative Society have to commence the work within a period of 30 days from date of issuance of DLOA i.e. up to 16.08.2023 vide Para 4/N EIC has narrated that the Society was commenced the work on dated 08.10.2023 with the help of District Administration under Police Custody. Further, vide Para 5/N to 7/N and vide Para 14/N, EIC and Unit Incharge Jaisalmer has narrated that the period of 16.08.2023 to 07.10.2023 is considered under force majeure clause of the tender document and delay in commencement of work is not attributable on the part of the society. The tender was floated by Contract Cell Udaipur, therefore, it is appropriate to obtain direction from Contract Cell, CO in this regard. 22) Vide 12/N, EIC has narrated that after commencement of work by society on dated 08.10.2023 the quarterly target was not given to Co-operative Society which was further endorsed at Para 15/N. by Unit Incharge, Jaisalmer that the short-fall in tendered quantity is also not attributable on the part of society, therefore, in this regard we may also obtain direction from Contract Cell, CO, Udaipur. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 16.11.2023 (Dinesh Kachhawaha) Manager (Cont.) XXX XXX XXX 27) As per facts narrated in pre paras, the society commenced the work on dated 08.10.2023 under police custody and presently Society is executing the work in day time from only specific locations of Sanu Limestone mines. 28) Due to this constraint i.e. only day time transportation, the Society is transporting only avg. 3000 MT/day as against requirement of about 12000 MT/day. The EIC-Transportation and Unit In-charge (Jaisalmer) recommended for considering the above period under force majeure condition and releasing the payment as proposed at N/15. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 17.11.2023 (P.R. Prajapat) Group General Manager (Limestone) XXX XXX XXX 36) It is also submitted that SBU-PC(IS) processed a file on RAJ- KAJ for seeking competent approval for waiver of applicable compensation for delay in commencement in the same contract being force majeure situation (copy of note-sheet is placed at R/42 (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (29 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] for kind perusal). If deemed proper pending approval of competent authority for same, the applicable compensation may be retained and balance payment may be release to the society. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 22.11.2023 (Gaurav Shrivastava) (Mgr. Cont.) XXX XXX XXX 77) The contractor M/s United Coal Carrier have regularly reported such incidences and lodged FIR against the local truck union. RSMML management have also taken the cognizance for all such incidence for hindrance in transportation work by the local truck union and reported the incidences to district administration and police department and lodged FIR against the miscreants of local truck union, but despite that situation is still remain the same as in force majeure condition. 78) Apart from that other operational issues like availability of Server/Net for generating e-Rawana at Weighbridges, permissible locations of loading by the police department in view of threating by local truck union, permissible size of Limestone gitti for loading (30-60, 30-50 mm) as per the directions of the management to cater the customer demand, operating, maintenance & B/D hours of C & S plants, no feed issues of C & S plants, C & S plants design for placing of high capacity trailers beneath the hoppers, free flow movement/round trip movement in a lot of 6-7 dumpers as permissible by the police department, time of arrival and availability of police personnel's for escorting/protection the transportation vehicles, etc. affects the transportation work. XXX XXX XXX Sd/- 26.12.2023 (Pramod Dabi) Manager(Mining) & EIC Transportation” 12.2 A perusal of these note-sheets, particularly the note-sheet dated 09.11.2023, clearly indicates that the respondent Department not only acknowledged the existence of a serious law and order issue at the site from where the minerals were to be lifted, but also recognized that the situation was a force majeure condition. The note-sheet further reveals that it was specifically recommended that no penal provisions be invoked and no penalty be imposed upon the petitioner, as the circumstances leading to (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (30 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] the delay were beyond the control of both the petitioner and the department. 12.3 The existence of the law and order problem at the site stands further substantiated by the following additional circumstances: (i) The earlier contractor, respondent – PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd., who had been awarded the same work, had also faced an identical law and order situation and was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7055/2020. This Court, considering the gravity of the matter, issued notices vide order dated 14.08.2020. A perusal of the said order further indicates that even prior thereto, when the work was being executed by another contractor, it was also constrained to approach this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6556/2019 (M/s LR Mining and Transportation Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) seeking similar relief in respect of the same work, which was disposed of by this Court on 10.05.2019. In continuation thereof, in the present case as well, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court seeking police protection. Despite orders being passed directing the respondents to provide necessary police assistance, and in the absence of effective compliance, the petitioner was constrained to initiate contempt proceedings by filing S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1248/2023. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the said contempt petition vide order dated 21.01.2026, recorded the statement made on behalf of the respondent Department that the law and order issues previously faced by the petitioner had been (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (31 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] resolved and in order to ensure smooth transportation of minerals in future, a temporary police chowki had been established. This sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the law and order situation was not only real and persistent, but also officially acknowledged and required judicial as well as administrative intervention. (ii) Further, the note-sheet, particularly Note No. 4 and 5, clearly records that although the work was scheduled to commence from 16.08.2023, it could only commence with effect from 08.10.2023 due to the prevailing law and order situation. Further, in Note No.15, it is specifically noted therein that such delay was beyond the control of the concerned contractor/society, and consequently, the delay in commencement could not be attributed to them. 12.4 The aforesaid material, therefore, unequivocally establishes that the delay in commencement of work was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, duly acknowledged by the respondent department itself, and was in the nature of a force majeure situation. D. DEFICIENT QUANTITY OF TRANSPORTATION : 13. The second ground, as mentioned in the termination order dated 24.12.2023, is that the petitioner failed to execute the requisite quantity of transportation and loading in accordance with the tender schedule. It is pertinent to note that, as per the tender conditions, the petitioner was required to commence the transportation work within 30 days from the date of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance, i.e., on or before 16.08.2023. However, (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (32 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] the work could actually be commenced only on 08.10.2023, for the reasons already discussed herein-above. 13.1 It is further to be noted that the petitioner was able to commence the work with effect from 08.10.2023 only after indulgence was granted by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14178/2023. Additionally, the note-sheet, particularly Note No. 7, clearly indicates that force majeure conditions prevailed in full force up to 07.10.2023. It is also recorded therein that although the situation had partially improved thereafter, certain restrictions imposed by the police department and the district administration, particularly with regard to time and location, continued to operate, thereby rendering the situation substantially akin to force majeure until permission for 24-hour unrestricted movement for transportation activities across all mining locations was granted without the need for police protection. 13.2 These observations make it abundantly clear that even after the deployment of police assistance, the existence of time-bound and location-specific restrictions materially impeded the petitioner’s ability to carry out transportation operations efficiently. Such constraints would necessarily have had a direct bearing on the overall quantity of minerals that could be lifted and transported. Consequently, the shortfall in execution, which forms the second basis for termination of the contract, also appears to be intrinsically linked to the prevailing law and order situation, which was beyond the control of the petitioner. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (33 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of RSMML, while supporting the termination order, has not been able to controvert the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, particularly with respect to the existence and impact of the law and order issues prevailing during the relevant period, both at the stage when the petitioner was required to commence the work and during the period when such conditions continued to subsist beyond the control of both the petitioner and the Department. He has, in fact, fairly stated that subsequent to the passing of the interim order and up to the present date, the performance of the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory. E. FORCE MAJEURE : 15. The issue that remains for consideration is whether the law and order situation, as pleaded by the petitioner, would fall within the scope of the force majeure clause in the terms of the tender. 15.1 Before delving into the said issue, it would be apposite to refer to Clause 4.65 of the NIT, which provides for force majeure as incorporated in the terms of the tender: “ FORCE MAJEURE: 4.65. Neither the Co-operative Society nor the company shall be considered to be in default in the performance of their respective obligations under this Contract, such performance is prevented or delayed because of the conditions constituting force Majeure which shall include but not limited to notice/s from the Directorate of Mines Safety Office other Statutory Authority, Civil Commotion, Fire accidents, epidemics, War, acts of God or because of any law, order, proclamation or ordinance of any Government or any authority thereof or forced stoppage of mining, loading operations, accumulation of stock of mineral, failure of railways to supply wagons/ boxes at railway siding, non-availability of mineral at mines/ railway siding and other places due to reasons like sand dune/ storms/ other causes and for failure of transportation or for any other cause beyond reasonable control of the party affected , provided notice of such cause is given in writing by the party (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (34 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] affected within 14 days of the happening of the event. In case it is not possible to serve the said notice within the said period of 14 days then within the shortest possible period. Power cuts/ partial power failure/interruption shall not be construed as force Majeure for this purpose and the same shall not affect in any way the performance of the Contract. As soon as the cause of force Majeure has been removed, the party whose ability to perform its obligation has been affected shall notify the other of such cessation. Should one or both the parties be prevented from fulfilling their contractual obligations by state of force Majeure lasting for a continuous period of three months both the parties shall consult each other and decide about the future course of action regarding the contract.” 16. This Court is inclined to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the circumstances prevailing at the work site would fall within the ambit of the force majeure clause. The reasons for the same are twofold. Firstly, Clause 4.65 is not exhaustive and is merely illustrative in setting out the circumstances under which the force majeure clause may be invoked. It is true that strikes, agitations, or obstructions caused by the truck union/association are not per se included in the said clause, however, a holistic reading thereof reveals that any cause beyond the reasonable control of a party would qualify as a force majeure condition. Considering that such obstruction was not faced by the petitioner alone, but had also arisen when previous contractors were engaged for the same work, and further considering that the work could only commence with the assistance of the police authorities, it is evident that the situation was beyond the control of both the petitioner and the RSMML authorities. 16.1 Secondly, the note-sheet, various letters communicated to the Police and Collector so also the photographs of the site, available on record reflect that the authorities themselves were (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (35 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] treating the situation as one of force majeure. Therefore, it is, in effect, an admitted position that the circumstances were beyond the reasonable control of the petitioner, thereby justifying the plea of force majeure. 16.2 Furthermore, the clause does not merely cover natural calamities but also extends to other circumstances that may arise and are beyond the control of the parties to the agreement. 16.3 So far as the requirement of issuance of notice is concerned, the parties were fully aware of the situation prevailing at the site and were in continuous communication with each other, therefore, the invocation of the force majeure clause in the factual matrix of the case did not come as a surprise. Rather, pertinently, the authorities themselves had been treating the situation as one of force majeure and thereafter proceeded to cancel the contract on the very same grounds which had been so characterized. 17. Though respondent - RSMML, in its reply, has denied that the law and order situation constitutes a valid ground for invoking the force majeure clause, the same runs contrary to its own note- sheets, which indicate that there was a serious law and order problem. It is also inconsistent with the submission made during the contempt proceedings that the issue has since been resolved and that a police outpost has been established at the site. 18. In view of the above, since the force majeure clause would be applicable to the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the delay in commencing the work or for failing to achieve the requisite targets. Consequently, the impugned termination order / (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (36 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] communication issued on the basis of these two grounds cannot be sustained. 18.1 So far as judgments passed in the case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Private Limited (supra), M/S Techno Prints (supra), UMC Technologies (supra), and Isolators (supra) are concerned, since we have held that the termination of contract itself to be on basis of reasons which are covered under force majeure clause therefore, we do not deem it necessary to delve into the aspect as to whether the decision to blacklist on the same force majeure grounds is a rational one or not and whether the same was taken following the principles of natural justice. In other words, the root of the decision to blacklist, forfeit security deposit so also termination of the contract as has been held to be unsustainable by this Court, therefore, the question of weighing the correctness of blacklisting so also forfeiture of security deposit does not warrant adjudication. F. CONCLUSION : 19. In the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra), while discussing the sanctity of public-private-partnerships in tender process, the Apex Court observed as under: “123. Before we close this judgment, we must also address one very important aspect as regards the importance of maintaining the sanctity of tenders in public private procurement processes. 124. Public tenders are a cornerstone of governmental procurement processes, ensuring transparency, competition, and fairness in the allocation of public resources. It emanates from the Doctrine of Public Trust which lays down that all natural resources and public use amenities & structures are intended for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. The State is not the absolute owner of such resources and rather owns it (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (37 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] in trust and as such it cannot utilize these resources as it pleases. As a trustee of the public resources, the State owes i) a duty to ensure that community resources are put to fair and proper use that enures to the benefit of the public as-well as ii) an obligation to not indulge in any favouritism or discrimination with these resources. The State with whatever free play it has in its joints decides to award a contract, to hold up the matter or to interfere with the same should be accompanied by a careful consideration of the harm to public interest. 125. Public tenders are designed to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders, fostering an environment where competition thrives, and the best value is obtained for public funds. The integrity of this process ensures that public projects and services are delivered efficiently and effectively, benefiting society at large. The principles of transparency and fairness embedded in public tender processes also help to prevent corruption and misuse of public resources. In this regard we may refer to the observations made by this Court in Nagar Nigam v. Al. Farheem Meat Exporters Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 382, which reads as under : 16. The law is well settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well-known dailies having wide circulation in the locality with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest money deposit, etc. The award of government contracts through public auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy and efficiency in government procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) 126. The sanctity of public tenders lies in their role in upholding the principles of equal opportunity and fairness. Once a contract has come into existence through a valid (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (38 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] tendering process, its termination must adhere strictly to the terms of the contract, with the executive powers to be exercised only in exceptional cases by the public authorities and that too in loathe. The courts are duty bound to zealously protect the sanctity of any tender that has been duly conducted and concluded by ensuring that the larger public interest of upholding bindingness of contracts are not sidelined by a capricious or arbitrary exercise of power by the State. It is the duty of the courts to interfere in contractual matters that have fallen prey to an arbitrary action of the authorities in the guise of technical faults, policy change or public interest etc.” 20. Considering the above observations, it is essential to note that the authorities themselves were treating the situation as being beyond control and unmanageable at the end of either party, however, they subsequently proceeded to cancel the contract on the basis of delay and shortfall caused by such an uncontrollable situation. This contradictory approach of the State, after awarding the tender to the successful bidder, cannot be upheld, as it is clearly borne out from the record that the petitioner was not at fault, rather, it was the extraneous circumstances that adversely affected the execution of the work. 21. The totality of the circumstances in the present case clearly indicates that the ground realities were not conducive for the petitioner to execute the work in a free-flowing manner and without hindrance. 22. In the above-discussed peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the situation was beyond the reasonable control of the petitioner, as contemplated under the force majeure Clause No. 4.65 of the NIT. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (39 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] 23. In view of the observations made above, the impugned order/communication dated 24.12.2023 (Annexure-38) issued by Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 24. Any pending applications stand disposed of. (Per Arun Monga, J.) 1. While concurring with the judgment, ibid, so eruditely authored by my learned brother, Sunil Beniwal, J., I deem it apposite to append a brief epilogue. The official records, contemporaneous correspondence with the authorities, and the prevailing site conditions unmistakably demonstrate that the situation was, in fact, treated as one of force majeure. De jure also, it has been conclusively held that such circumstances indeed fell squarely within the contractual definition of force majeure, in light of the reasons and findings already recorded. 2. In that perspective, the petitioner cannot be fastened with liability for any delay or failure in achieving contractual targets. The very substratum of the termination thus being untenable, the resultant cascading ripple effect i.e. the consequential actions emanating therefrom, viz. blacklisting and forfeiture of the security deposit, are also rendered equally unsustainable/unlawful and it is accordingly so held, leading to quashing of the impugned order in totality, as above. The blacklisting and forfeiture do not merit independent adjudication/reasoning, as the very root cause itself has already been declared legally infirm. (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) (40 of 40) [2026:RJ-JD:13125-DB] [CW-15655/2024] 3. It is also pertinent to note that, in response to a specific query during the course of hearing, learned counsel for RSMML fairly conceded that the petitioner’s performance, post the force majeure period, was entirely satisfactory and free from any complaint. This fortifies the conclusion that the plea of force majeure was no moonshine defence. It was neither contrived nor illusory, but owing to the genuine circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. 4. Moreover, now with only a brief remainder of the contractual term subsisting (couple of months or so), after which fresh tenders are to be invited, this contributory equitable factor also persuades us to permit the petitioner to continue for the balance duration of the contract. </div><table><thead><tr><th>(SUNIL BENIWAL),J</th><th>(ARUN MONGA),J</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:34:35 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 01:27:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)</div>