HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 644/2026 M/s Balaji Steel Industries ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan and Ors.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Sharma with Mr. M.K. Dhakad for Mr. R.A. Katta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

13/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier participated in the bidding process initiated vide Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) dated 28.04.2025, wherein the petitioner-firm was declared as the lowest bidder, but malafidely the letter of intent was not issued. Thereafter, the respondents arbitrarily blacklisted the petitioner for a period of two years. The said blacklisting order was challenged by the petitioner and the same was quashed and set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 in M/s Balaji Steel Industries Vs.

State Of Rajasthan and Ors.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order of blacklisting being quashed and set aside by this Court, the respondents have not issued a letter of intent and every time they have prolonged the matter and kept the matter pending for one reason or another and finally, vide order dated 12.12.2025,

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9408/2025

the said tender period was not extended and tender was cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that soon after the cancellation of the tender vide order dated 12.12.2025, the respondents issued a fresh NIB dated 15.12.2025 i.e. second tender in a great haste and not only finalized the tender proceedings on non-working days i.e. second saturday and sunday, but also bent upon to issue work order in pursuance of the said second tender dated 15.12.2025 which reflects that in the case of the petitioner when his tender was accepted, the work order was not issued for months altogether and herein in second tender, the work order has been issued in a very short span of time on non-working days. He also submits that this reflects the mala fides and nepotism of the respondents, more particularly, in view of the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has filed a reply to the writ petition today in the Registry and contends that in view of the facts narrated in the reply, the petitioner is not entitled to interim relief.

5. Looking to the urgency of the matter, the arguments were heard on prayer for interim stay.

6. Heard.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner-firm was declared as the lowest bidder by the respondents, however, the letter of intent was not issued in favour of the petitioner. Further, the respondents vide order dated 16.06.2025 blacklisted the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9408/2025, and the same was quashed and set and aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, despite which the respondents did not issue a letter of intent to the petitioner and kept the matter pending. Subsequently, the tender period was not extended and the same was cancelled vide order dated 12.12.2025. Thereafter, a fresh NIB was issued by the respondents vide notification dated 15.12.2025 for which the tender/ bidding proceedings were finalized on non-working days i.e. second saturday and sunday and the respondents are bent upon issuing a work order for the same, which prima facie reflects mala fide intent on the part of the respondents.

8. List the matter on 21.01.2026.

9. Till 21.01.2026, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today in respect of NIB dated 15.12.2025 qua work Nos.1 and 2.

10. The Registry is directed to place the reply to the writ petition on record, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder, if any.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /227-S