JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition for writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ/order or directions:-

i) the order dated 13.10.2022 (Annex.-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to award the work contract and execute the agreement with the petitioner firm for the project works.

iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from awarding the work order and execution of agreement in favor of any other tenderer.

iv) That if during pendency of writ petition, the work order is issued and agreement is executed in favor of other tenderer, the same may be called upon and be quashed and set aside.

v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner firm.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that respondent-RIICO invited online unconditional bids on 14.09.2022 through e-procurement portal for the works, namely, (i) Survey, Outer Boundary Demarcation, Plot Demarcation and Road & CD Works at Industrial Area Kerwa, Jaisalmer and; (ii) Survey, Outer Boundary Demarcation, Plot Demarcation and Road & CD Works at Industrial Area Bhaniyana, Jaisalmer; the bids in question were called in two parts and the estimated procurement costs for the Project Work-I and Project Work-II, were fixed as Rs.297 Lacs and Rs. 287 Lacs, respectively.

2.1. The petitioner-Firm is enlisted as “A Class” Contractor and submitted the applications for the tender in question. After opening of the bids, the technical bid of the petitioner-Firm was accepted and the financial bids were opened on 28.09.2022; the petitioner-Firm was declared as L1 for the both aforementioned works in question.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent issued a letter dated 04.10.2022 to the petitioner-Firm, stating therein that the petitioner-Firm has concealed the information regarding the pending work orders, while submitting the technical bid in relation to the aforementioned works in question; the petitioner-Firm was called upon to submit the necessary clarification for the aforesaid concealed information; the petitioner-Firm submitted its reply to the said communication on 07.10.2022.

2.3. Subsequently, the petitioner-Firm received an order dated 13.10.2022 (through E-mail dated 14.10.2022), whereby its tender bid application has been rejected for the aforementioned works; the same was done alongwith imposition of a penalty to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, while blacklisting the petitioner-Firm for a period of six months. The respondents thereafter, issued a fresh advertisement dated 19.10.2022 inviting the tender bid applications for various project works, including the works in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed by the respondent alleging breach of integrity as per Section 11 sub sections (2) & (3) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2012’), which provides for imposition of penalty and blacklisting of the concerned Firm, only if there is any omission/misrepresentation in submitting the information to mislead to obtain financial or other benefits; but the respondent has not recorded as such findings in the impugned order; therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner-Firm by the respondent before passing of the impugned order; thus, on that count alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT OF DELHI) & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 105 and; Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs.