Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
M/s K.R. Associates – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6054 of 2023
Decided On : 05-05-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 - Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Depositing the earnest money - Allocation of contracts - Respondents issued a tender for awarding a contract pertaining to collection of Excess Royalty, DMFT, RSMET and Other fees (ERCC Contract) - Petitioner was awarded such contract to undertake the work at, for a period of one year, which was to come an end - Held, Original advertisements were issued for E-auction to award the ERCC Contracts, followed by issuance of various corrigenda by respondents; but despite that, it clearly reveals that respondents gave sufficient time, as prescribed under Rule 37 of Rules of 2017, counting period from date of issuance of original advertisements, and not, from issuance of corrigenda - Court further observes that State Government vide Gazette Notification notified that the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(1) This Hon’ble Court may by pleased to call for the entire record of the case pertaining to the NIT’s issued on 08.03.2023 (Annex-4) and 17.03.2023 (Annex-5) and judicially review the same, further:
(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the E-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 (Annex-4), 17.03.2023 (Annex-5) and 31.03.2023 (Annex-6), as well as the corrigendum’ issued thereunder, may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to undertaken the fresh E-auction process of all the royalty collection contracts in question, after giving sufficient time to the bidder in due consonance with the Rules and regulations so formulated there under.
(iii) Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioners.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondents issued a tender for awarding a contract pertaining to collection of Excess Royalty, DMFT, RSMET and Other fees (ERCC Contract); the petitioner was awarded such contract to undertake the work at, for a period of one year, which was to come an end on 31.03.2023.
2.1. The respondents issued an E-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023 for grant of ERCC Contracts to various contractors; whereafter, the respondents issued another E-auction advertisement dated 17.03.2023 for allocation of 34 contracts. The respondents further issued an E-auction advertisement dated 31.03.2023 for allocation of 21 ERCC Contracts throughout the State of Rajasthan.
2.2. Thereafter, the respondents issued a corrigendum dated 22.03.2023 for incorporating certain amendments in the advertised contracts. The respondent issued a second corrigendum vide letter dated 10.04.2023 in pursuance of the E-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023, whereby it was provided that in relation to contracts no. 1 to 23, the dates for depositing the earnest money shall be 19.04.2023, instead of 10.04.2023, on the same day, the reserve price of certain contracts under E-auction advertisement dated 17.03.2023 was also changed.
2.3. The respondents subsequently, vide order dated 11.04.2023 issued corrigendum-3 in pursuance of E-auction advertisement dated 08.03.2023, whereby the respondents substituted the dates for contracts no. 24 to 67.
2.4. The respondents again issued another corrigendum on 11.04.2023 in pursuance of E-auction advertisement dated 17.03.2023, whereby the auction schedule for contracts no. 27 to 34 was amended and the date for deposition of the earnest money was changed from 18.04.2023 to 28.04.2023.
2.5. The respondents issued another corrigendum dated 20.04.2023 to issue a cumulative corrigendum in pursuance of all aforementioned E-auction advertisements, amending the dates for deposition of the earnest money as well as dates of E-auction. On the same day i.e. 20.04.2023, the respondents issued another corrigendum, cancelling the corrigendum so issued earlier on the same day, and specified fresh schedule for the E-auction, while preponing the dates of E-auction. The respondents vide order dated 21.04.2023 increased the reserve price in regard to certain contracts so advertised in the E-auction advertisement dated 17.03.2023.
2.6. Subsequently, the respondents again issued a composite corrigendum-3 dated 25.04.2023 in pursuance of advertisements dated 08.03.2023 and 17.03.2023, whereby, as mentioned in the writ petition, the dates for deposition of the earnest money and the dates of E-auc
The court established that a successful bidder in an e-auction must comply with the specified conditions, and failure to do so can result in forfeiture of bid security and debarment from future aucti....
The court affirmed that auction terms must provide legal certainty, and found no ambiguity in the terms of the e-auction for mining leases, thus upholding the auction process.
Fairness and transparency in tender processes mandate that bid deadlines cannot be altered without public notice, as such changes can create unfair advantages and violate equal opportunity principles....
Non-compliance with the requirement to deposit the remainder of the purchase money within the specified time renders the auction sale a nullity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
