Rajasthan High Court Declines Writ In Janani Express Contract Dispute, Cites Agreed Dispute Resolution Mechanism

The Rajasthan High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Modern Emergency Services JV Pvt. Ltd. over its Janani Express contract with the State.

The company had sought a six-month extension of its service agreement. It had also sought reimbursement for 350 newly procured ambulances. In addition, it challenged Clause 6.4(35) of a fresh Request for Proposal issued on November 26, 2025.

Justice Maneesh Sharma held that the principal grievances arise out of a commercial contract. Since the parties had consciously agreed to a dispute resolution mechanism under Clause 10.6 of the original RFP dated July 7, 2020, the Court said it would not ordinarily exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“When the parties to a commercial contract have mutually agreed to a particular mechanism of redressal, this Court ordinarily should not exercise the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India to obviate such arrangement made between the parties,” the Court observed.

The petitioner is a joint venture company comprising three private entities. It was awarded the contract for operation and management of 104 Janani Express ambulances pursuant to the 2020 RFP. Thereafter, a service agreement was executed on December 11, 2020. The agreement was initially valid until December 10, 2023 and was later extended up to December 10, 2025.

As the extended term drew to a close, the company requested a further six-month extension. According to it, the State had neither taken over the vehicles in terms of the exit clause nor reimbursed the cost of 350 newly procured ambulances. However, by order dated December 10, 2025, the State rejected the request. The company then approached the High Court.

In response, the State questioned the maintainability of the petition. It pointed to a clause of the RFP, which requires disputes arising out of the agreement to be placed before a designated committee in the first instance.

If either party is dissatisfied with the committee's decision, the matter may then be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

After considering the clause, the Court held that the reliefs sought by the petitioner, including quashing of the rejection order clearly fall within the scope of a “dispute” arising out of the agreement. It therefore held that these issues must be addressed through the dispute resolution mechanism agreed to by the parties.

To support this view, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation v. Gayatri Construction Company.

In those cases, the Supreme Court reiterated that High Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction in contractual matters where the parties have agreed to an effective alternative remedy.

Turning to Clause 6.4(35) of the fresh RFP dated November 26, 2025, the Court noted that the clause originally stated that the outstanding bank loan for vehicles deployed on a turnkey basis by the previous service provider would be payable by the incoming service provider.

Subsequently, however, the clause was substantially amended through a corrigendum dated December 23, 2025. The amended provision expressly capped the outstanding loan amount at Rs. 11,57,25,000, or such amount as quantified at the time of the agreement, as payable by the incoming service provider. 

Significantly, the amended provision was not challenged. Nor was any rejoinder filed to refute it. The Court therefore held that the challenge to the earlier version of Clause 6.4(35) had become redundant. At the same time, it clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to challenge the amended clause before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies under Clause 10.6 of the 2020 RFP in respect of the contractual disputes.