Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Dilip Buildcon Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8277, 8307 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Anuroop Singhi, Mohan Singh Bhati, Abhishek Mehta.
For the Respondents: Sunil Beniwal, Saransh Vij, Sachin Acharya, Devanshi Saini.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - RTPP rules 2013 - Claiming reliefs - Writ order - Original and financial bid of petitioner be considered and evaluated - Held, Court also finds that aforementioned condition in Bidding Forms, which is part of record, is a mandatory condition, and since petitioner-Company does not fulfill same, then hearing case on other propositions of merits would be a futile exercise, because petitioner before this Court is a Company, who does not fulfill even basic and mandatory parameter/condition and has been declared as a Non-Responsive Bidder, on basis of its own admission that it is not a profit making Company in last seven consecutive financial year - Petitioner-Company was complying with all necessary conditions, then it would have been necessary to hear matter on other issues so raised herein, but since basic and mandatory condition prescribed for Responsive Bidders was admittedly not fulfilled by petitioner-Company, Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to petitioner-Company in instant petitions - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8277/2023:
“It is, therefore, prayed that present writ petition may kindly be allowed:
(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned decision dated 31.5.2023 (An-12) along with all subsequent/consequential orders/ decisions may kindly be quashed.
(b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the original decision dated 19.5.2023 (An-5) may kindly be restored in its original and the financial bid of the petitioner be considered and evaluated.
(c) In the alternative, by an appropriate writ order or direction, the procurement proceedings in tender no. CE/WRD/JDPR/05/2022-2023/Item No. 02, being in violation of RTPP rules 2013, may kindly be quashed.
(d) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8307/2023:
“It is, therefore, prayed that present writ petition may kindly be allowed:
(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned decision dated 31.5.2023 (An-10) along with all subsequent/consequential orders/decisions may kindly be quashed.
(b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the original decision dated 19.5.2023 (An-5) may kindly be restored in its original and the financial bid of the petitioner be considered and evaluated.
(c) In the alternative, by an appropriate writ order or direction, the procurement proceedings in tender no. CE/WRD/JDPR/05/2022-2023/Item No. 01, being in violation of RTPP rules 2013, may kindly be quashed.
(d) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the tender without undertaking any onerous actions.”
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that on 25.01.2023, a Notice Inviting Bids was floated by the respondents for construction of Dam across the Sabarmati River for Diversion of Surplus Water of Sabarmati Basin to Jawai Dam near Chak Sandmariya Village, Tehsil Kotra, District Udaipur (Rajasthan) on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Single Responsibility Turnkey basis.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Company submitted that on 19.05.2023, the technical bid was opened, and the petitioner- Company as well as one M/s. Om Infra Limited, were declared as Responsive Bidders; one of the bidders (M/s. PES Engineers Private Limited), however, was declared as a Non Responsive Bidder; thus, the financial bid was to be opened, between the two Responsive Bidders, on 24.05.2023.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the decision taken by the Chief Engineer & Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, on 30.05.2023, in an appeal filed by the Non Responsive Bidder, the respondents have re-determined the technical bid on 31.05.2023, whereby the petitioner-Company was demoted to the category of a Non Responsive Bidder.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that in the present case, due adherence to the principles of natural justice was not made by the respondents, as before demoting the petitioner-Company to the category of a Non Responsive Bidder, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it; even the petitioner-Company was not a party to the aforementioned appeal filed by the Non Responsive Bidder.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the hurried manner, in which the whole process has been completed by the respondents, clearly shows that the same has been done so as to extend undue favour to the blue-eyed persons of the respondents.
3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-Company was complying with all the necessary requisites, as prescribed in the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General assiste
