Order

1) Heard on stay application.

2) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Notice Inviting Bids dated 16.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, which were issued on regional basis and sought quashment of the said NIBs. Apart from that the other reliefs have also been sought.

3) The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Notice Inviting Bids (NIBs) with regard to Outdoor Media Services items like (1) FRONT LIT FLEX WITH FRAME Front: (i) Solvent Printings of 4 pass, (ii) Frame of 1”Square MS Pipe of 2.0 KG lengths of 20 ft. (iii) Installation with GI wire on top & Bottom and (iv) Flex of 280 GSM Black Back; (2) FLEX SOLVENT 4 PASS WITH PRINTING: (i) Use CMYK colour profile, (ii) Use proper colour management system and (iii) For printing image, use minimum 300 DPI resolution image, and other works, were issued. The main challenge to the present NIBs is that in the Notice Inviting Bids, no estimated quantity of the services, for which rate contract bid was invited, was fixed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such NIB is in violation of Rule 29(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to, as “the Rules of 2013). It is also his submission that by the year 2022, initially similar Notice Inviting Bids were issued for State level and on making hue and cry from proposed bidders, a corrigendum was issued. Subsequently also, similar kind of NIB was issued and corrigendum was issued later. Ignoring the same, when similar kind of Notice Inviting Bids were issued in 2024, the same was assailed before this Court and this Court has granted stay not to finalize the tender process. While the said writ petition was pending, the said NIB was withdrawn and the present NIBs were issued without prescription of the estimated quantity of services.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in spite of adjournment of the matter for specific instructions, the Authorities are hastily taking decisions on all of a sudden and in fact the bids were also open to defeat the relief claimed in the present writ petition.

5) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not a participant in the bidding process and he has no locus standi to challenge the Notice Inviting Bids. It is also his contention that the petitioner is not a qualified bidder and he suppressed the material facts in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ is required to be dismissed at the threshold.

6) The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further contended that judicial review is impermissible in commercial matters unless exceptions are made out. According to him, the present case is not falling under any exception. The learned counsel also submitted that though the estimated quantity of the work is not prescribed, however, the value of the work is prescribed. Therefore, the defects, which were found in the NIB, which was under challenged before this Court in another Writ petition of the petitioner, were rectified. Hence, the present NIB was issued, which according to him, is in tune with the lapses pointed out in the previous writ petition.

7) The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that Rule 29(2)(d) of the Rules of 2013 permits them to enter into rate contract without mentioning the quantity, place and time of the supply, subject matter of procurement. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) N.G.Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. Reported in (2022)6 Supreme Court Cases 127 (ii) Ridhi Sidhi Associates (M/s) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010(1) RLW 643 (Raj.), (iii) Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC Onl