SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Smo Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9814 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: K.K. Sharma, Alankrita Sharma.
For the Respondents: R.P. Singh, J.S. Shekhawat, C.R. Giri, Sandesh Nayak.

Headnote:

Companies Act, 1956 - Notice Inviting Tender - Account of procedural difficulties - Whether petitioner was prevented from uploading technical bid along with IPO online for reasons beyond its control and if yes, what relief, if any, could be granted to petitioner at this stage - Held, petitioner has undertaken several tenders from respondent-Department and is working consistently with Government for more than two decades and have a good track record - Therefore it can safely be assumed that petitioner company was well aware about E-Auction procedure - Petitioner company had also deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs and arranged bank guarantee of Rs. 3.70 crores well within time, which further establishes their bona-fide - Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition was filed with the following prayers:

    “(i) By a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, quash the Tender process initiated by TENDER No. MSTC/JPR/Directorate of Mines & Geology Rajasthan Udaipur/17/Udaipur/23-24/7362 dated 17.05.2023 and may be directed to initiate the tender process afresh.

(ii) By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the technical bid of the petitioner and further writ of mandamus, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to submit its initial price offer.

(iii) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be also granted in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the present proceedings may also be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner.”

Looking at the urgency involved, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at this stage.

FACTS/BACKGROUND

2. The facts of the case, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, are as follows:

    2.1 That the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing, mining and construction sector serving the government and private sector all over India for more than two decades.

2.2 That the petitioner company has been working consistently with the Central and State Government and is well aware about the E-Auction Process as the petitioner had previously participated in several E-Auctions conducted by different government departments and has also undertaken three important tenders with the respondent department.

2.3 That the Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Rajasthan had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (for short “NIT”) dated 17.05.2023 inviting bids for the purpose of grant of mining lease/composite license for the blocks of major minerals. The issue involved in the present petition is related to mineral block of ‘Basri Ganeshpura Blovk n/v Basri Ganeshpura Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur’ for ‘Composite License’

2.4 That as per the NIT, last date of purchase of tender document was 01.06.2023 upon payment of a fee of Rs. 2 Lakhs and the last date of submission of technical bid along with necessary documents (physical/hard copy as well as soft copy through online mode) and initial price offer (for short “IPO”) (only through online mode) was 21.06.2023 until 01.00 PM. The tender in question has a two stage bidding process; the first stage wherein the technical bid and IPO were to be submitted by various bidders. Only those bidders who are found to be eligible and whose IPO is equal or greater than the reserved price and whose bid meets the requirement under the NIT were to be declared technically qualified and the highest IPO amongst the technically qualified bidder is supposed to be the floor price for the second round of Online Electronic Auction. Only the qualified bidders could proceed to the second round of tender wherein only the qualified bidders would be permitted to submit their final price offer.

2.5 That the petitioner company had submitted the physical copy of the technical bid well within time along with bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 3.70 crores (Rupees Three Crores Seventy Lakhs only) on 20.06.2023 itself. The cause and controversy in the matter arose when the petitioner company attempted to upload the technical bid along with the IPO online on the MSTC Portal, which was incharge on conducting the E-Auction, before the deadline, i.e. 21.06.2023 at 01.00 PM. It is the case of the petitioner company that due to technical glitches/errors on the MSTC portal, the petitioner company was unable to upload the bid online in time and therefore the petitioner company was prevented from participating in the tender process. Being aggrieved by their non-participation in the tender process, the present writ petition was filed with the prayers as quo

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top