Supreme Court Intervenes in Rajasthan Government Contract Dispute
The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a significant interim order, staying all recovery and attachment proceedings against the Rajasthan state government. This decisive action came after the court was informed that movable property, including furniture and government vehicles, had already been seized due to non-payment in a long-standing contractual dispute with a private contractor.
Legal Bench Takes Up State's Plea
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh agreed to hear the urgent plea filed by the Rajasthan government. The bench formally issued notice to the contractor involved, seeking his detailed response to the state's arguments. Representing the state, Advocate Kartikeya Asthana presented the case before the apex court.
Asthana argued that the Rajasthan High Court had incorrectly refused to entertain the government's appeal, dismissing it solely on the grounds of an alleged delay in filing. He emphasized that a "satisfactory justification for the 259-day delay" had been comprehensively documented and placed before the high court, which it failed to properly consider.
Origins of the Contractual Dispute
The legal conflict originates from a road construction contract awarded to a contractor based in Kota. In a ruling delivered in September 2023, a trial court determined that the Rajasthan government had breached the terms of the contract. Consequently, the court directed the state to refund an amount of Rs 6.35 lakh to the contracting company, along with annual interest accruing at a rate of 6%.
The statutory limitation period for filing an appeal against this trial court order expired in November 2023. However, the state government filed its appeal in the Rajasthan High Court much later, in July 2024. Following this, in August 2024, the high court delivered its verdict, refusing to condone the significant delay and dismissing the appeal without examining the substantive legal merits of the case.
State's Justification for the Delay
Challenging the high court's order, the state's petition to the Supreme Court contended that the lower court had wrongly dismissed a "well-reasoned condonation of delay application." The application cited multiple unforeseen administrative and political circumstances that allegedly caused the filing delay.
According to the plea, the high court failed to appreciate three primary reasons outlined in the condonation application:
- A change in the panel of government lawyers following a change in the state government after elections.
- The deputation of concerned officials due to the state assembly elections and the subsequent 2024 parliamentary elections, which diverted administrative focus.
- The enforcement of the model code of conduct during the extensive election period, which restricted certain government actions.
Supreme Court's Interim Relief
The Supreme Court's intervention became crucial after it was informed that attachment warrants had already been issued by the executing court. Furthermore, the process of seizing and attaching government movables had commenced. In light of these developments, the apex court passed an interim order to immediately stay all attachment and recovery proceedings until the matter is heard in detail.
The state's petition strongly criticized the high court's order, stating: "The high court erroneously dismissed the condonation of delay application and, consequently, the petitioners' appeal itself through a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and erroneous final order. It gravely erred in observing that there was falsity in either the condonation of delay application or the additional affidavit. The high court order suffers from arbitrariness and non-application of mind and ought to be set aside."
The Supreme Court's stay order provides temporary relief to the Rajasthan government, halting the recovery process while the legal arguments concerning the delay and the merits of the original contract dispute are examined at the highest judicial level.
