[2026:RJ-JP:22004-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 404/2026 Modern Emergency Services Jv Pvt. Limited, Having Its Registered Office At 407, 4Th Floor, Jaipur Center, B2 By Pass Junction, Tonk Road Jaipur Through Authorized Representative Shri Shrikant Taneja, S/o Sudhir Kumar Taneja, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 312 Surya City, Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical Health And Family Welfare Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra Sr. Adv assisted by Ms. Jaya Mitra, Ms. Manisha Meena and Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma For Respondent(s) : - HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU (THROUGH VC) Order 25/05/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who has entered into a contract with the Medical and Health Department relating to the supplying of vehicles for operation and management of 104 Janani Express services in Rajasthan. The contract period is over, however, even the extended period of contract is over. 2. The appellant by way of this appeal challenges the directions issued on completion of the contract whereby the appellant is [2026:RJ-JP:22004-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-404/2026] required to handover the vehicles to the Medical and Health Department. 3. Learned senior counsel submits that the vehicles are in the name of the appellant and the respondents cannot force him to handover the vehicles to them after the contract period is over. 4. If that be so, the appellant may take a decision at its own level, however, in the garb of the letter issued for handing over the vehicles, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 would not extend the period of contract nor can it ask the respondents about the process they would adopt with regard to the 104 vehicles at the instance of the appellant. The matter being purely contractual in nature, the remedy lies elsewhere. 5. The appeal is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 3-divyaP