SC stays recovery proceedings against Rajasthan government for not refunding to a contractor | India News

New Delhi: Facing the embarrassment of a recovery process for failing to return a contractor – some movable property including furniture and vehicles have already been seized – the Rajasthan government on Monday got relief from the Supreme Court. The apex court stayed the proceedings against him.A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh agreed to hear the state’s plea after advocate Kartikeya Asthana submitted that the Rajasthan High Court had wrongly rejected the government’s plea due to delay. He argued that a satisfactory argument for the 259-day delay was placed before the High Court, but it was wrongly rejected.Agreeing to examine the issues raised by the state, the bench issued notice to the contractor and sought its response.Amid a legal dispute between the government and a quota-based contractor, a trial court ruled in September 2023 that the state had breached the road construction contract and ordered the company to refund Rs 6.35 lakh with 6% annual interest. The state filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court in July 2024 after the mandatory limitation period 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. Challenging the High Court’s order, Advocate Asthana told the Supreme Court that the High Court had wrongly dismissed the state’s plea for delay. The petition clearly explained that the appeal could not be filed within the statutory period due to unforeseen reasons including change of state government and delayed process of appointment of lawyers.“The High Court has failed to cite three main reasons for the delay in the pendency petition: (1) change of lawyers after change of state government, (2) appointment of concerned officials due to state assembly elections and subsequent 2024 assembly elections, and (3) application of model code of conduct during election period,” the state said in Pillai.As the court was informed that attachment warrants had been issued against government property by the executing court — and movable property, including furniture and vehicles, had already been seized and attached — the Supreme Court decided to grant an interim order staying the attachment proceedings.“The High Court wrongly dismissed the plea of ​​delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners itself by way of wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and erroneous final order. It gravely erred in observing that the condonation of the plea of ​​delay or the additional affidavit was false. The petition and impugned order of the High Court. Be set aside,” the petition said.