1. Writ petition challenging tender disqualification dismissed; disqualification under tender condition 2.22.1(c) for contract terminated due to breach of conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 11 , 18 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, BIPIN GUPTA, JJ.
VPRPL-GKR JV - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited - Respondent
D.B. Spl. App. Writ No. 1042 of 2025
Decided On : 21-08-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Lokesh Mathur, Priyansh Arora
For the Respondents: Ravi Bhansali, Sunil Purohit, Mohd. Amaan
For the Appellants : Lokesh Mathur, Priyansh Arora
For the Respondents: Ravi Bhansali, Sunil Purohit, Mohd. Amaan
Disqualification for tender participation can occur due to prior contract termination for breach, and late challenges to tender conditions post-participation are impermissible.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Section Not Specified - Tender Process - Disqualification of Bidder due to termination of previous contract for breach - The appellant’s bid was deemed non-responsive due to a termination order that was not stayed, rendering them ineligible for participation in the tender. Court upheld the application of tender condition No. 2.22.1. (Paras 9, 17, 19)
(B) Appeal - Principles of Natural Justice - The appellant’s late challenge to tender conditions was not permissible; established legal principles affirm that once engaged in the tender process, parties cannot challenge the terms after participation. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant’s bid was disqualified in the technical evaluation process due to prior contract termination for breach, leading to the challenge of the dismissal of their writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge addressed all aspects and dismissed the petition due to lack of merit in claims against the tender conditions.
Issues: The main issues included whether tender condition No. 2.22.1 applied based on the termination of the appellant’s past contract and whether the appellant could contest tender provisions post-participation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the termination of the appellant’s contract sufficed for disqualification under condition No. 2.22.1(c), and late challenges to tender conditions post-participation are invalid. The decision of the Single Judge was upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- contract law
Table of Contents
2. Condition 2.22.1(c) misinterpreted as not requiring adjudication; blacklisting stay shields from disqualification; condition violates RTPP Act 2012; termination remains in currency. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
3. Appeal dismissed; Single Judge correctly applied tender condition 2.22.1(c); disqualification justified as termination for breach remains in currency. (Para 19 , 20 )
4. Does condition 2.22.1(c) of a tender document require adjudication by a competent authority before deeming a bidder non-performing?
No. The condition mandates that if a contract has been terminated for breach of its conditions, the bidder is disqualified as a non-performing party without any requirement of adjudication. (Para 3 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
5. Does a stay on a blacklisting order also stay the termination order, thereby allowing participation in subsequent tenders?
No. The High Court stayed only the blacklisting order, not the termination order; the termination remains in currency and the disqualification under the tender condition is justified. (Para 14 )
6. Can a tender condition be challenged for the first time in appeal under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012?
No. The appellant did not challenge the condition before participating; it is a settled principle that once the game has started, the rules cannot be challenged. (Para 15 )
7. Is the Supreme Court judgment in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour applicable when a bidder is disqualified before qualification under tender conditions?
No. That case involved cancellation of an accepted tender and work order at a third person's behest, whereas here the appellant was disqualified before qualification based on tender conditions. (Para 16 )
8. Is the judgment in State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh relevant where a tender bid is rejected for non-compliance with pre-qualification criteria?
No. That case pertained to re-auction of properties without sustainable justification, which is factually different from disqualification under tender conditions for breach of contract. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
BIPIN GUPTA, J.
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12395/2025, whereby, the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.06.2025 was dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the appellant’s bid was found to be non-responsive in the technical bid evaluation process and thus the appellant was disqualified from participation in the tender process.
2. Shorn of the fact, respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for work related to hiring of Heavy Earth Moving Equipment for removal of overburden, raising, loading and transportation etc. of saleable lignite and allied works at Sonari Lignite Mines, District Barmer (Rajasthan). The appellant submitted the bid and on the consideration of the same, appellant was not found qualified as per the pre-qualification criteria and provisions of the tender document.
3. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 29.07.2025, while considering the provisions of the tender document, specifically condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document arrived at a finding that one of the appellant’s contract has been terminated by the Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) on account of breach of conditions. Further, the writ petition has been dismissed as there being alternative remedy being available.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that condition No. 2.22.1 of the tender document has not been applied correctly and has been misinterpreted in the present case. Since there has been no adjudication by any Competent Authority regarding the breach of condition having been committed by the appellant, therefore condition No. 2.22.1 is not applicable.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that an illegal termination of contract of a lead member of the appellant’s joint venture was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and vide order dated 30.09.2022, the High Court stayed the order of blacklisting and held that the blacklisting shall not come in the way of the other contracts of the appellant with various other department/corporation/local bodies etc. and therefore, condition No. 2.22.1 cannot be invoked.
6. Another argument raised for the first time by the appellant is that the condition No.2.22.1 is contrary to provisions of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTPP Act, 2012’) and therefore, he can raise the legal issue in appeal and therefore, same be declared to be illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court to buttress his arguments -
(i) Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors. AIR 2024 SC 3784
(ii) K. Lubna & Ors. Vs. Beevi & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 524
(iii) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 724
8. Per contra learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that condition No. 2.22.1(c) applies in case if the contract of an entity has been terminated on account of breach of conditions of the contract. Since the appellant’s termination order issued by the Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) has not been stayed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and only order of blacklisting has been stayed, therefore, the termination order remains in currency and therefore, according to condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document, the appellant is not qualified and is a non-performing party.
9. We have heard the counsels for the parties and scanned the material available on record.
10. Tender condition No. 2.22 reads as under:
“2.22 Evaluation of Techno-Commercial Bid
2.22.1 The Bidder, including an individual or any of its Joint Venture member, should not be a non performing party on the bid submission date. The Bidder, including any Joint Venture Member, shall be deemed to be a non-performing party if it attracts any of the following parameters:
a) Rated as an unsatisfactory
