M/S KARUNA ENTERPRISES vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CW/6403/2026

Case under Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 Section 2. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.

Next hearing 09-Apr-2026

CNR: RJHC020303932026

Filing Number

CW/17654/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

CW/6403/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB Writ Petitions which are not covered under any of the above sub categories ( 4300 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 Section 2

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S KARUNA ENTERPRISES

    Adv. MANOJ KUMAR AVASTHI,N K TIWARI,N K TIWARI, ,N K TIWARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  2. 2.DEPUTY DIRECTOR (REGIONAL), LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

  3. 3.EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO)

Case History

  1. 09-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Sameer JainView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the civil writ petition filed by M/s Karuna Enterprises challenging the cancellation of their sanitation contract by the Municipal Board. The court found that the petitioner breached the contract by failing to perform cleanliness services despite multiple notices and opportunities to cure the defects, thereby admitting negligence. Since the matter was contractual in nature, the court declined to interfere via writ jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner has alternative remedies available under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    For Admission- Fresh (With Stay)

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CW/6403/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the civil writ petition filed by M/s Karuna Enterprises challenging the cancellation of their sanitation contract by the Municipal Board. The court found that the petitioner breached the contract by failing to perform cleanliness services despite multiple notices and opportunities to cure the defects, thereby admitting negligence. Since the matter was contractual in nature, the court declined to interfere via writ jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner has alternative remedies available under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case