Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45676 (RAJ)

AMIT ROHIDA S/O SHRI BHERULAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CMA/4553/2025 · 2025-10-27

Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:42917-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4553/2025 Amit Rohida S/o Shri Bherulal, Proprietor Amit Construction, Address 709, Pratap Nagar, C.a.d. Circle, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Kota (Rajasthan) 2. Additional Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Address Office Of Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Kota Division Raj Bhawan Road, Civil Lines, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devkrishna Purohit For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 27/10/2025 1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Commercial Court, Kota dated 08.07.2025, whereby the application for Temporary Injunction has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the suit is pending, the blacklisting ought to have been stayed. 3. We find that prima facie the case is not made out in favour of the appellant as admittedly he did not challenge the order by which he was held ineligible to participate in the tendering process. The appeal thereto was also filed and the same was also dismissed and the second appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the consequential action of blacklisting has been conducted. Since the debarment [2025:RJ-JP:42917-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-4553/2025] itself stands concluded, blacklisting is consequential and thus no prima facie case is said to be made out in favour of the appellant. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. Moreover, we are of the firm view that since the suit is pending and in the meanwhile if the final relief is granted, the very purpose of filing suit would stand frustrated. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. However, we request the learned Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Rahul/Diksha-8