Supreme Court Intervenes in Rajasthan Government's Legal Battle with Contractor
The Supreme Court of India has provided significant relief to the Rajasthan government, which was facing the embarrassment of recovery proceedings for failing to refund a contractor. In a notable development on Monday, the top court stayed these proceedings, offering the state government a temporary reprieve from the enforcement actions that had already seen some of its movable property seized.
Legal Proceedings and Government's Plea
A bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh agreed to hear the state's plea after advocate Kartikeya Asthana presented the government's case. Asthana argued that the Rajasthan High Court had incorrectly refused to entertain the government's application on the grounds of delay, despite what he described as a satisfactory justification for the 259-day delay being properly presented before the court.
The Supreme Court bench, agreeing to examine the issues raised by the state, issued notice to the contractor and sought his response to the government's arguments. This decision marks a crucial turning point in what has become a protracted legal dispute between the state administration and a private contractor.
Background of the Contract Dispute
The legal conflict originated from a road construction contract between the Rajasthan government and a Kota-based contractor. In September 2023, a trial court determined that the state had breached the contract and directed the government to refund ₹6.35 lakh to the company, along with 6% annual interest from the date of the initial payment.
The state government filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court in July 2024, well after the mandatory limitation period had expired in November 2023. The high court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in August 2024 without examining the merits of the case, setting the stage for the Supreme Court intervention.
Government's Justification for Delay
In challenging the high court's order, advocate Asthana told the Supreme Court that the lower court had wrongly dismissed the state's well-reasoned condonation of delay application. The government's plea clearly explained that the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period due to several unforeseen circumstances.
The state cited three primary reasons for the delay:
- Change in legal representation following the change in state government administration
- Concerned officials being deputed due to the state assembly elections and subsequently the 2024 parliamentary elections
- The enforcement of the model code of conduct during the election period
The government argued that these factors created legitimate obstacles to timely legal action, which the high court failed to properly appreciate in its decision-making process.
Immediate Relief from Property Seizure
As the Supreme Court was informed that attachment warrants had been issued against government properties by the executing court, and that movable property including furniture and vehicles had already been seized and attached, the bench decided to pass an interim order staying the attachment proceedings.
This immediate relief prevents further enforcement actions while the Supreme Court considers the substantive legal questions raised by the state government's appeal.
Government's Legal Arguments
In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan government contended that the high court had committed significant errors in its handling of the case. The state argued that the lower court "erroneously dismissed the condonation of delay application and, consequently, the petitioners' appeal itself through a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and erroneous final order."
The government further asserted that the high court "gravely erred in observing that there was falsity in either the condonation of delay application or the additional affidavit" and that the order "suffers from arbitrariness and non-application of mind and ought to be set aside."
The Supreme Court's decision to stay the proceedings and examine the case represents a significant development in this ongoing legal dispute, with potential implications for how government entities navigate legal deadlines during periods of political transition and electoral activity.
