[2025:RJ-JP:36739-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 555/2024 M/s. Raj Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd., F-1, Adarsh Residency, Plot No. 443, Vidhyut Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021 Through Dr. Rajesh Jhajharia. ----Appellant Versus 1. ITI Limited Having Its Office, At Iti Ltd. 407-410 Hemkoot Building, Behind Lic Office, Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380009 And Its Corporate And Registered Office At ITI Bhavan Doorvani Nagar Bangaluru 560016, Karnataka Through Authorised Representative Ramdeen Uikey S/o Ramlal. 2. Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur (Raj.) Msefc Hq-1 Commissioner Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Udhyog Bhavan Tilak Marg, Jaipur 302005 (Raj.) Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Saharan, Adv. With Mr. Sunil Kumar Swami, Adv Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Yaddvi Dhawan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 10/09/2025 1. The appellant before us has preferred this special appeal(writ) aggrieved by the reason that its application under Article 226(3) for seeking vacation of ex-parte interim stay, was not addressed and the interim order was continuing without giving any further reasons. [2025:RJ-JP:36739-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-555/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that writ petition itself was not maintainable as earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was withdrawn in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to the power of the MSME Council to refer the dispute for arbitration and act as an arbitrator. The said aspect regarding filing of the writ petition and withdrawal thereto was not mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12833/2023, filed afresh by the same party. The only difference in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12833/2023 and the earlier one was that a new ground has been raised in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12833/2023 relating to the issue as to whether the contract between the appellant and the respondent was a working contract or a service contract. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that so far as the interim order is concerned, the same was based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court which is under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Be that as it may, since he submits that this ground had not been raised by the writ petitioner in the earlier S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4802/2022, successive writ petitions would not be maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case is pending before the learned Single Judge from the year 2023. 6. Considering the aforesaid arguments and the fact that the case is pending before the learned Single Judge, we leave it open for the appellant to raise all its objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. [2025:RJ-JP:36739-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-555/2024] 7. However, keeping in view the fact that the earlier writ petition has been withdrawn by the writ petitioner with liberty to raise all legal objections before the Council, we deem it proper to vacate the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2023. 8. The present Special Appeal (Writ) is accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/196