[2025:RJ-JP:21508] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 176/2020 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13309/2018 Hema Construction, “Sukhi Sadan”, 1-R-56, Gayatri Nagar, H.M. Sector 5, Udaipur Through its Partner Harish Gaurav On Shri Raghunath Ji Patel, Aged 63 Years, Resident of Sukhi Sadan, 1-R-56, Gayatri Nagar, H.M., Sector 5, Udaipur (Rajasthan.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Miss Kirti Kumar, The Commissioner Municipal Council, Bundi (Rajasthan.) 2. Dr. Joga Ram Secretary Loacl Self Government, , Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. The State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Advocate & Ms. Nisha Jakhariya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, A.A.G. assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate & Ms. Pooja Dixit, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order Reserved on ::: 16/05/2025 Pronounced on ::: 26th May, 2025 *** Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging therein that the order dt.02.12.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13309/2018 titled as Hema Construction Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bundi & another, has not been complied with. [2025:RJ-JP:21508] (2 of 4) [CCP-176/2020] The respondents invited E-NIB dt.01.05.2018 for reconstruction/repair of the roads at Municipal Council, Bundi & the estimated tender value as per NIB was Rs.841.30 lakhs. The petitioner was found the lowest bidder & was declared successful by respondents. The petitioner quoted the rates, which was 8.01% below the estimated tender value. After completing proceedings, LOI was to be issued. The respondents cancelled the NIB dt.01.05.2018 & re-invited the NIB on 14.06.2018 for the same amount & work for which the petitioner was declared as successful bidder. The cancellation of earlier E-NIB & re- invitation of NIB on 14.06.2018 were challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.02.12.2019, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, held that “in terms of the undertaking given by the petitioner to perform the work of construction of road in pursuance of NIB No.618 dt.14th June, 2018 at the rate of 11.87% below the estimated tender value, the respondents have accepted the offer and the matter will accordingly be proceeded further for award of contract to the petitioner”. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Chithra Woods Manors Welfare Association Vs. Shaji Augustine, in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.712/2023 in SLP (Civil) No.17433/2021 & in the case of Y.N. Gangadhara Setty & Others Vs. Jaya Prakash Reddy, MD, Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, (2007) 14 SCC 434, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that inspite of the undertaking given by the petitioner in respect of performing the tender work in NIB No.618 dt.14.06.2018 @ 11.87% below the estimated tender value, as was required by the respondents, the order dt.02.12.2019 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:21508] (3 of 4) [CCP-176/2020] Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not been complied with by the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has submitted that the administrative & financial sanction issued by the Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage & Infrastructure Corporation Limited (RUDSICO) to the Municipal Council, Bundi for the tender work in pursuance of NIB No.618 dt.14.06.2018 was cancelled/withdrawn alongwith eight other Municipal Councils & Municipalities vide order dt.22.05.2020 by the Executive Director, RUDSICO. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.841.05 lakhs allocated for the said work has been returned by the Municipal Council, Bundi to the RUDSICO and, hence, the work order could not be issued to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents have not made any willful or deliberate non-compliance of the aforesaid order/direction of the Hon’ble Court. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned order & the material made available on record. Perusal of the order dt.22.05.2020 reveals that the administrative & financial sanction issued by the RUDSICO to the various Municipal Councils & Municipalities including Municipal Council, Bundi was cancelled/withdrawn and all the Civic Bodies were directed not to issue the work orders. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the administrative & financial sanction amounting to Rs.841.05 lakhs with regard to the tender work in question was cancelled/withdrawn vide letter dt.22.05.2020 by the RUDSICO. The tender work in dispute was issued in pursuance of the administrative & financial sanction and after withdrawal of administrative & financial sanction, the work order could [2025:RJ-JP:21508] (4 of 4) [CCP-176/2020] not be issued. The granting or withdrawal of the administrative & financial sanction is not within the control of the respondents. In my opinion, if the administrative & financial sanction for a tender work is withdrawn/cancelled, the non-allocation of the tender work does not constitute the Contempt of Court. The Contempt of Court involves action that undermine the Court’s authority and obstructs the administration of justice. The withdrawal of administrative & financial sanction, which is under the control of administrative & financial decision taking authority, not a violation of the Court’s order or a deliberate act to obstruct the administration of justice. Thus, there is no willful or deliberate non-compliance of the order dt.02.12.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. I find no merit in this contempt petition and the same stands dismissed accordingly. Notices, if any, stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK/