[2026:RJ-JD:9027]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5871/2025 M/s Tak Brothers, Through Proprietor Yakub Tak S/o Shri Sattardeen, Aged 38 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 17, Tak Bhawan, Nohar District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Department Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Municipal Board, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through Its Executive Officer.

3. Smt. Khatun, Chairman, Municipal Board, Nohar District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Choudhary for Mr. R.S. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

18/02/2026 By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

(i) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to issue the work no. 2 supply and laying water pipeline in municipal area, Nohar pursuant to technical and financial bid dated 13.02.2025 admitted pursuant to NIT No. 11/2024-25 dated 22.01.2025.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from debarring the petitioner firm or cancelling his bid application for work no. 2.

(iii) The impugned tender summary report dated 21.02.2025 for not admitting the technical bid of the petitioner for work no. 1 & 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to reopen the technical bid of the petitioner for work no. 1 and 3 and to provide the work order if the petitioner firm found lowest bidder.

(v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court prima facie finds that, according to the petitioner, it had submitted three bids for three different works pursuant to a common e- Notice Inviting Tender issued by the respondents. It is contended that the specifications for all the works were identical; however, the respondent authorities accepted the technical bid of the petitioner in respect of one work, while rejecting the bids for the remaining two works on the ground that the same did not meet the required technical specifications.

3. In the reply, the respondents have submitted that, in fact, none of the three bids submitted by the petitioner fulfilled the prescribed technical specifications. It is further stated that the petitioner-firm’s name was inadvertently included in the list of technically qualified bidders in respect of one bid due to an error.

4. It has also been submitted that the petitioner-firm was having outstanding departmental dues and, therefore, in terms of Clause 8 of the e-Notice Inviting Tender, it was ineligible to participate in the tender process.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the petitioner- firm was not fulfilling the prescribed terms and conditions governing participation in the tender process, no legal right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated. It is well settled that the terms and conditions of a tender are within the realm of contract and are not open to judicial interference except on limited grounds such as arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of principles of fairness. A bidder cannot insist that the authority alter, modify, or delete any condition of the Notice Inviting Tender to suit its convenience.

6. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed.

7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

50-divya/-