Home / Business and Economy / Rajasthan Court Dismisses Firm's Petition, Imposes ₹10L Fine

Rajasthan Court Dismisses Firm's Petition, Imposes ₹10L Fine

Summary

  • Rajasthan high court dismisses petition by Mumbai firm
  • Firm challenged termination of ₹205.36 crore contract by AVVNL
  • Court imposes ₹10 lakh cost on petitioner, payable to AVVNL
Rajasthan Court Dismisses Firm's Petition, Imposes ₹10L Fine

In a ruling on November 2, 2025, the Rajasthan high court has dismissed a petition filed by a Mumbai-based private firm challenging the termination of a multi-crore contract and its subsequent blacklisting by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL). The ₹205.36 crore contract between the firm and AVVNL was signed in 2023 under the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS).

The court held that the dispute was purely contractual in nature and outside the scope of judicial review. AVVNL had, through an order dated June 19, 2025, terminated the contract and blacklisted the firm, citing allegations of delay, unsatisfactory progress, and failure to achieve scheduled milestones despite repeated notices and opportunities.

Agreeing with AVVNL's submissions, the bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed that the utility's decision was a reasoned administrative action taken in accordance with the contract and governing rules. The court also imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on the petitioner, payable to AVVNL within 60 days and recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of default.

Disclaimer: This story has been auto-aggregated and auto-summarised by a computer program. This story has not been edited or created by the Feedzop team.
The Rajasthan high court dismissed the petition filed by the Mumbai-based private firm challenging the termination of a multi-crore contract and its subsequent blacklisting by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL).
The ₹205.36 crore contract between the firm and AVVNL was signed in 2023 under the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS).
AVVNL terminated the contract and blacklisted the firm based on allegations of delay, unsatisfactory progress, and failure to achieve scheduled milestones despite repeated notices and opportunities.

Read more news on