1. Petition challenging rejection of bid for operating boat services as non-responsive and award to another bidder under public procurement tender; issues of eligibility, corrigendum, and procedure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 687
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
M/s Ujjain Dreams, (Proprietor Firm), Through Its Proprietor Deepesh Kushwah, S/o. Shri Devnarayan Kushwah - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1439 of 2026
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Moti Singh.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate – cum – AAG, assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Moti Singh.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate – cum – AAG, assisted by Mr. Aishwarya Anand, Mr. Tushar Jain, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh.
Tenders with a single responsive bidder must strictly comply with Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, necessitating a justification note and reasoned approval. Arbitrarily high base rates that stifle competition violate statutory obligations to ensure transparency and fair treatment of bidders.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 5 and 6 - Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 - Rule 68 - Tender for operating boat services - Single responsive bid - Compliance with procedure for lack of competition - Requirement of justification note and reasoned approval - Procurement entity's obligation to promote competition - Unreasonably high base rate discouraging prospective bidders - Judicial review in contractual matters - Limited to legality of decision-making process - Interference permissible in case of arbitrariness, irrationality or malafides. (Paras 14-20)
(B) Alternative Remedy - Writ petition maintainable despite existence of alternative statutory remedy where the bid is alleged to have been accepted malafidely, where the procedure of law has not been followed, or where an immediate work order has been issued. (Paras 8-8.2)
Facts of the case:
A tender was invited for operating boat services for a specific period. The petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive, and the bid of another party was accepted, and subsequently, a work order was issued. The petitioner challenged the action on the grounds that its bid was wrongly rejected, the procurement process was biased, and the authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure for cases where only a single responsive bid is received. It was further alleged that the base price was set unreasonably high, restricting fair competition.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner's bid was rightly declared non-responsive as it failed to provide the mandatory three-year experience and satisfaction certificates. However, the process of accepting the sole responsive bidder was found to be legally flawed. The authorities disregarded the mandatory requirements of Rule 68 of the Rules of 2013, as no justification note was prepared and no reasoned findings were recorded by the procuring entity or the finance member of the committee. Additionally, the fixation of an unreasonably high base rate, despite historical evidence of lower accepted rates, was found to be arbitrary and contrary to the statutory obligation to promote competition under Section 4 of the Act of 2012.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's bid was wrongly rejected; whether the award of the contract to a sole responsive bidder without following the procedure for 'lack of competition' was legal; and whether the base rate was set arbitrarily to restrict competition.
Ratio Decidendi: When a sole bidder is declared responsive, the procuring entity must strictly adhere to the procedure under Rule 68 of the Rules of 2013, which includes preparing a justification note and recording specific reasons for approval. Procuring entities must ensure that tender conditions and base rates are reasonable and do not unduly limit competition. While judicial review in tenders is limited, the court must interfere when the decision-making process is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violates statutory mandates, to protect the integrity of public procurement.
Result: Impugned tender quashed and set aside; respondent directed to float a fresh tender in accordance with law within two months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
alternative remedy
- exceptions to exhaustion requirement
-
writ jurisdiction
- relief molding (Para 21)
-
alternative remedy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to equality
-
fundamental rights
-
statutory interpretation
-
rajasthan transparency in public procurement act, 2012
- section 4 - fundamental principles
-
rajasthan transparency in public procurement rules, 2013
- rule 68 - lack of competition
-
rajasthan transparency in public procurement act, 2012
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges bid wrongly rejected, base price improperly reduced, biased process, and failure to follow statutory procurement rules; respondents assert compliance, alternative remedy, and limited judicial review. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Court found petitioner's bid rightly rejected for lacking requisite experience; however, authorities failed to comply with Rule 68 of Procurement Rules and Act's principles, showing casual approach and arbitrariness. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. In sole responsive bidder scenarios, procuring entities must strictly comply with Rule 68 of Procurement Rules, including justification note and recorded reasons, to ensure transparency, competition, and fairness. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Writ petition partly allowed; impugned NIT quashed, fresh tender directed within two months, with authorities to follow statutory obligations and fix competitive base rate. (Para 22 , 23 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review in tender matters?
Judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process, including illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides, but does not substitute the court's decision for the authority's commercial or technical judgment. (Para 14 )
7. What are the requirements under Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 when there is a single responsive bidder?
The Bid Evaluation Committee must check whether competition was encouraged, assess the reasonableness of the price, prepare a justification note including views of the finance/accounts member, and the procuring entity must record reasons for accepting or rejecting the single bid. (Para 17 )
Order :
SUNIL BENIWAL, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved of the action of the respondent No.2, whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner-firm for operating the boat services at Nakki Lake, Mt. Abu, District Sirohi for the year 2025-2028 was declared to be non-responsive and the bid submitted by the respondent No.4 was declared to be responsive, consequent to which the tender was awarded to respondent no.4.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent No.2 floated a tender whereby bids were invited from the eligible firms for operating boating services at Nakki Lake for the year 2025-2028 vide communication dated 19.12.2025 (Annex.1).
2.1 The petitioner, treating itself to be eligible, submitted its bid. Thereafter, a pre-bid meeting was convened on 29.12.2025 wherein certain modification was made in the Condition No.21 of the tender notice and a corrigendum was issued on 06.01.2026 (Annex.5). The petitioner has also questioned the decision of the respondent No.2 in issuing such corrigendum and changing the terms and conditions of the tender.
2.2 The technical bid was opened on 13.01.2026 and the bid submitted by the petitioner was considered to be non-responsive and the bid submitted by the respondent No.4 was accepted. Hence, this petition.
3. Challenging the action aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-
(i) The bid submitted by the petitioner was wrongly considered to be non-responsive. The petitioner was having requisite experience, however, despite this, the petitioner-firm was not found to be eligible by the respondents. He drew Court’s attention towards Annex.12, and submitted that the reason assigned for considering the petitioner’s bid as non-responsive is contrary to the record.
(ii) The respondents have committed error not only in treating the petitioner’s bid to be non-responsive but the decision to award contract to respondent No.4 is not only in violation of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’) and Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’) but the same clearly reflects that the entire process has been carried out in a biased manner.
Elaborating the same, learned counsel submitted that the base price for the tender in question was amounting to Rs.7,61,00,000/- and the bid submitted by the respondent No.4 has been accepted at a much lower rate. In no case, the respondents could have reduced the base price and on this count alone, the contract awarded to the respondent No.4 deserves to be cancelled.
(iii) The technical bid is said to have been opened on 13.01.2026, however, Annex.10 clearly shows the status as on 15.01.2026 was that the bid submitted by the petitioner was admitted and that of the respondent No.4 was to be opened. It is submitted that on 15.01.2026, at 11.03 a.m., it is observed that the bid submitted by the petitioner was found to be non- responsive as reflected in Annex.12 and at the same time, the status as noted on 15.01.2026, at 9.56 a.m. (Annex.10), indicates that the bid submitted by the petitioner to be admitted. It is thus, submitted that the respondent No.2, in order to accommodate the respondent No.4, has manipulated the tender proceedings and has proceeded in complete biased manner in not only declaring the petitioner’s bid to be non-responsive but at the same time has proceeded to show undue favour to the respondent No.4 in treating its bid to be responsive. Not only this, the respondents have also acted in arbitrary manner and declared the respondent No.4 as successful bidder and issued work order in a hot and haste manner.
(iv) The respondent no.4 did not possess the requisite documents like solvency certificate and experience certificate which is mentioned in the tender conditions. On the other hand, petitioner possesses relevant experience as it has entered into partnership on 07.01.2026 with one Sunil Kumar Gupta, prop
