JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:

A. That the writ petition of petitioner may kindly be allowed and order of annexure 5 and 8 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. That respondent may kindly be directed that considering the petitioner’s bid as successful, and order him to participate in the online/technical bid.

C. That any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

D. That costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a medicine supplier and for making such supplies, he was issued the requisite drug license by the concerned department.

2.1. The respondents issued a tender (E-NIB No.30), whereby the dealers were invited for making supplies of the medicines. The petitioner participated in the said tender, and as per condition no.16 of the tender in question, the technical bid was to be opened only after receipt of the correct nomenclature on the Demand Draft/Bankers Cheque for the tender fee. The petitioner submitted 3 Demand Drafts, in total, and duly fulfilled all the requisites for the tender in question.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 14.03.2023 did not allow the petitioner to participate in the process of technical bid on the ground that the names/details mentioned in the Demand Draft so submitted by the petitioner were not correct.

2.3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.03.2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal, S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, with a request to declare the petitioner as eligible to participate in the online bid process, but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2023.

2.4. Thus, being aggrieved by the orders dated 14.03.2023 and 24.04.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the application for Demand Draft in question (in the name of Member Secretary, RMRS PBM Hospital, Bikaner) was written by the petitioner himself and submitted before the concerned Bank, with a request to prepare the Demand Draft in the name of the said authority, which was prepared accordingly.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the Demand Draft submitted by the petitioner contained the correct particulars, and thus, it was not lacking any requisite details. It was also submitted that non-mentioning of ‘PBM’ in the Demand Draft was only a clerical error, on the part of the Bank, and thus, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable, so as to oust him from the process of technical bid.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the tender in question, and the entire procurement process in question as conducted by the respondents is against the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, and therefore, impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and illegality.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable on count of availability of a statutory remedy in form of Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, and therefore, the present petition deserves dismissal.

4.1. It was further submitted that the Demand Draft (ICICI Bank, Ambedkar Circle Branch, Bikaner) bearing no.501082 dated 09.03.2023 was issued in the name of “Member SEC R M R S Hospital (BKN)” wh