{"id":236746,"date":"2020-10-05T09:30:24","date_gmt":"2020-10-05T04:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=236746"},"modified":"2020-10-09T11:08:42","modified_gmt":"2020-10-09T05:38:42","slug":"raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/","title":{"rendered":"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rajasthan High Court:<\/strong> Arun Bhansali, J., rejected a stay application that was filed aggrieved by the order of the Director, Mines demanding penalty, revoking sanction and passing debarring order against the petitioner.<\/p>\n

It was submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the e-auction notification for collection of excess royalty and DMFT amount on masonry stone participated, being a petitioner was granted the contract and was required to fulfill the requirements as indicated successful bidder, However, on account of lockdown imposed due to COVID-19 pandemic, needful could not be done by the petitioner and he requested the respondents to grant time for fulfilling the requirements of the office wherein, he was required to do the needful within 15 days. Thus, the petitioner had sent a communication seeking extension of date for signing the agreement \u2018without penalty\u2019 which was responded to by the mining engineer who had asked to do the needful in 3 days along with the penalty. The petitioner again had asked for the waiver of penalty consequently the matter was forwarded to the Director, Mines for taking action under the provisions of Rule 45 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (\u2018the Rules, 2017\u2019). In the order passed by the Director the bid security amount was forfeited, the sanction was revoked and the petitioner was debarred from participating in the forthcoming auction.<\/p>\n

The Court while rejecting the stay application explained that in the over all circumstances of the case where the formalities had to be completed in 15 days taking into consideration the effect of lockdown, and the prayer made by the petitioner seeking exemption from payment of amount of penalty was declined he was required to do the needful including payment of amount of penalty, the submission that as the communication was a recommendation only, the petitioner had no cause at that stage cannot be accepted inasmuch as insofar as the prayer made regarding exemption from payment of the amount of penalty is concerned stood rejected, which had provided cause to the petitioner. The Court added that the petitioner was not vigilant enough to seek his remedy in relation to the grievance as raised in the writ petition.[Bhaniyana Construction v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1386<\/b><\/a>, decided on 30-09-2020]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rajasthan High Court: Arun Bhansali, J., rejected a stay application that was filed aggrieved by the order of the Director, Mines demanding <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[41982,40154,2627],"class_list":["post-236746","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-covid","tag-lockdown","tag-Penalty"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court: Arun Bhansali, J., rejected a stay application that was filed aggrieved by the order of the Director, Mines demanding\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-05T04:00:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-09T05:38:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3584-e1487939870879.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/\",\"name\":\"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-05T04:00:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-09T05:38:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court: Arun Bhansali, J., rejected a stay application that was filed aggrieved by the order of the Director, Mines demanding","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-10-05T04:00:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-10-09T05:38:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3584-e1487939870879.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/","name":"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-10-05T04:00:24+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-09T05:38:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/05\/raj-hc-petitioner-not-vigilant-enough-to-seek-his-remedy-court-rejects-stay-application\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj HC | Petitioner not vigilant enough to seek his remedy, Court rejects Stay application"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":248042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/11\/mp-hc-advocate-located-anywhere-in-the-state-may-apply-for-passes-for-himself-or-his-staff-for-attending-office-during-the-ongoing-lockdown\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":0},"title":"MP HC| Advocate, located anywhere in the State, may apply for passes for himself or his staff, for attending office during the ongoing lockdown","author":"Editor","date":"May 11, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ., and Atul Sreedharan, J., decided over a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner contending that the respondents\/State authorities may be required to consider the applications of the advocates who were practicing lawyers at Bhopal, their associate advocates\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":245659,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/16\/rti-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":1},"title":"Utt HC | Delay in providing information under RTI Act does not amount to penalty, if valid reasons for the delay are proved; Court sets aside the penalty","author":"Editor","date":"March 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., partly allowed an appeal which was filed challenging an order passed by the State Information Commissioner by which a penalty of 25,000 had been imposed upon the petitioner for not providing timely information to respondent 2. The application, under Section 6 (1) of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":282518,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/27\/reassessment-order-issued-after-petitioner-was-unable-to-get-form-f-owing-to-covid-19-lockout-constitutes-violation-of-natural-justice\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":2},"title":"Inability to produce required documents due to COVID-19 lockdown; Gujarat High Court quashes reassessment order","author":"Editor","date":"January 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Gujarat High Court observed that due to COVID-19 lockdown it was impossible for the petitioner to get Form-F and denying adjournment after taking note of this fact results in breach of principle of natural justice.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Gujarat High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":249883,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/17\/covid-19-10\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":3},"title":"Kar HC | Freedom struggle cannot be compared to the lockdown imposed due to COVID \u2013 19 pandemic; Misuse of PIL a serious concern","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and M. Nagaprasanna, JJ., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner is an Advocate and a trade unionist as well as a social activist who filed this present public interest\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":266761,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/12\/work-from-home-under-maternity-benefit-act-can-be-availed-only-if-nature-of-work-assigned-to-women-is-possible-for-them-to-work-from-home\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":4},"title":"Work From Home under Maternity Benefit Act can be availed only if nature of work assigned to women is possible for them to work from home: Kar HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Noting that the nature of work assigned to a woman cannot be carried from home, R Devdas, J., held that, as per Section 5(5) of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 work from home after availing the maternity benefit could be given only in a case where the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-143.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-143.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-143.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-143.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/MicrosoftTeams-image-143.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233027,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/29\/delhi-high-court-stays-anti-profiteering-penalty-proceedings-against-samsonite-south-asia\/","url_meta":{"origin":236746,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court stays Anti Profiteering Penalty proceedings against Samsonite South Asia","author":"Editor","date":"July 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., stayed\u00a0 the anti profiteering penalty proceedings against Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. till further orders. The plaintiff had filed the petition, challenging the constitutionality and legality of the National Anti Profiteering Authority as well as Section 171 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236746","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236746"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236746\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236746"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236746"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236746"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}