Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 571
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN, J
M/S KANAK PRABHU TRADING COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 15681 / 2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Procurement
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 - Section 68 - Writ petition challenging disqualification of technical bid due to non-production of Income Tax Return Certificate attested by Chartered Accountant - Court found that both attestation by Chartered Accountant and self-attestation are concurrently required, thus upholding disqualification. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Tender Conditions - Mandatory requirements must be strictly adhered to; non-compliance justifies disqualification of bids. (Paras 3, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the disqualification of his technical bid on grounds of not providing the required Income Tax Return Certificate attested by a Chartered Accountant, arguing that self-attestation was sufficient. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disqualification, stating that the tender conditions required both forms of attestation concurrently, and the procedure under the Rules was followed despite the petitioner’s claims. (Paras 5, 6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the tender conditions allowed for self-attestation alone and if the procedure under the Rules was properly followed. (Paras 2, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tender conditions were clear in requiring both forms of attestation, and procedural lapses did not warrant setting aside the NIT given the advancement of work. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati, Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Kuldeep Solanki, Mr. Manish Patel
Order :
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the decision taken by the Committee dated 03.09.2024 whereby the petitioner’s technical bid was disqualified on the ground that he has not produced the Income Tax Return Certificate attested by Chartered Accountant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has two submissions; first submission is that the tender condition requires that the Income Tax Return of the three years which is required to be submitted must be attested either by the Chartered Accountant or self- attested and the second submission is that when one bidder is left in the bidding process certain safeguards and procedure have been provided under Section 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules of 2013’). In the present case, such procedure has not been followed by approving the only bid left after the scrutiny. According to him, the impugned bidding process is required to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have commonly submits that the requirement to self-attestation of the Income Tax Return is a mandatory requirement and they further submit that there is no alternative of either to be attested the Chartered Accountant or to be self-attested, both are requirements on the returns. Therefore, according to them, the evaluation Committee has rightly disqualified the petitioner.
4. It is also submitted that undisputed fact is that only a single bid was left after the scrutiny. According to the respondents, the entire procedure has been followed. Certain safeguards prescribed under the Rules of 2013 were followed and the negotiations were done. After the negotiations the bid amount was fixed and the work order has also been issued and the part of the work order has also been executed by supplying the requirements.
5. In the background of the above contentions, a close scrutiny of the tender condition No.7 of NIT clearly indicates that the return should be attested by the Chartered Accountant, in self- attestation. It is not stated that both the things are alternative. This means a clear reading of the said conditions would indicate that both the requirements are concurrently required. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault in the rejection Technical bid on the ground of non-compliance of the bid conditions.
6. So far as argument on non-compliance of the Rule of 2013 is concerned learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such procedure was not complied. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that such compliance and negotiations were done and after negotiations, bid amount was fixed. Even assuming that there is some procedure lapses, in the light of the advancement of the work, which is done in pursuance of work order, the procedure of non-compliance cannot be grant to setting aside the entire NIT.
7. In the said circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed.
