[2026:RJ-JP:24765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11040/2026 URN: CW / 24552U / 2026 Messrs. Dharamchand Kumawat, Through Proprietor Dharamchand S/o Badrilal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Ramthala, Tehsil Dewali, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Cum District Revenue Officer, Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer And Magistrate Dewali, Tonk. 3. Executive Engineer, Cad Bisalpur Block Third, Tonk, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Cannel Block First, Bisalpur Project, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Prajapat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/07/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.08.2024 as well as 07.05.2026 passed by the District Collector, Tonk whereby, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, directions have been given to make recovery of Rs.19,89,899 from the petitioner under the provisions of Public Debt Recovery Act, 1952. 2. Facts of the case are that in the year 2009, the petitioner being successful bidder was issued work order in respect of canal construction, however, on account of reasons as [2026:RJ-JP:24765] (2 of 3) [CW-11040/2026] mentioned in the writ petition by the petitioner that the land was not available, the work could not be performed by the petitioner as per schedule, hence, the work order was cancelled and in accordance with conditions No.2 and 3-C of the contract, damages were imposed upon the petitioner, however, when the petitioner failed to deposit the same, the matter was referred to the District Collector for carrying out proceedings under Section 4 of the Public Debt Recovery Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since cancellation of the work order itself was illegal and the procedure in this regard has not been properly considered by the District Collector, therefore, the orders passed by the District Collector are cryptic in nature or without considering such objections raised by the petitioner, impugned orders have been passed by the District Collector and ultimately auction notice dated 18.05.2026 has been issued. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court finds that at no point of time, cancellation of work order has been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, at the stage of proceedings under Public Debt Recovery Act, no such objection relating to procedure for cancellation of work order could have been entertained by the District Collector. This Court also finds that the impugned orders have been passed by the District Collector after giving due opportunity of hearing and on the basis of public demand certificate issued by the Executive Engineer Water Resources, Canal Block 1st, Bilaspur. [2026:RJ-JP:24765] (3 of 3) [CW-11040/2026] 6. The petitioner also filed an application for recalling of the review of order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the District Collector, however, the petitioner utterly failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in order dated 01.08.2024, therefore, the review application was also dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2026. 7. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has failed to point out any apparent perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned directions. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 33/DIVYA