HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 636/2021

S.k. Transport, Through Proprietor Jitendra Kaswan S/o Shri

Ganga Ram Ji Aged About 31 Yrs. By Caste Jat, R/o Shop No. 1,

Napasar, Bikaner

----Appellant

Versus

1.

Rajasthan State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.,

22 Godam Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur Through Its

Managing Director.

2.

Shri M.r. Khanna, Additional Registrar, Co-Operative

Societies, Bikaner Division, Bikaner

3.

Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bikaner.

4.

Bikaner Kolayat, Tehsil Kriay Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd.,

Bikaner Through Its General Manager.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Suresh Charan

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vishal Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

10/12/2021

By the Court : PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

1.

The present special appeal under Rule 134 of the

Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952 is filed by the appellant against

the interim order dated 11.11.2021 whereby the stay granted by

this Court on 18.8.2021 was vacated.

Facts of the case:-

2.

The District Level Committee headed by Deputy

Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Bikaner (respondent No. 3) has

issued a tender notice No. 5097 dated 17.3.2021 for award of

Handling and Transport Agent for the procurement Centers for

Rabi and Kharif agricultural crops, in furtherance of policy decision

of respondent no.1 RAJFED.

(2 of 9)

[SAW-636/2021]

3.

In the present appeal, the respondent No. 1 is the said

Policy Decision Making Authority and it prescribes procedure for

procurement and the sanction of Procurement Centers.

4.

Pursuant to the said tender notice dated 17.3.2021, the

appellant submitted tender applications for all the centers except

Doongargarh. The respondent No. 4 i.e. Bikaner, Kolayat, Tehsil

Kriya Vikray Sahkari Samiti Ltd declared the appellant as `L-1’

vide letter dated 19.4.2021 for work of handling and transport

agency and directed to comply with the formalities within five days

to execute the agreement and to deposit the procurement security

including the earnest money of Rs.13,05,000/- through Bankers

cheque/DD/RTGS. When the appellant did not comply the said

requirement of the bid, therefore, again the letter dated

24.4.2021 was issued to do the needful within the period of three

days.

5.

It was only after a period of three months i.e. on

15.7.2021 that the appellant for the first time, requested for

submission of bank guarantee in lieu of furnishing the security

deposit and earnest money asking for exemption on account of

Covid-19 situation and the appellant firm belonging to MSME

status. As per Rule 76 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

Procurement Rules (for short, referred to herein after as ‘the RTPP

Rules’), if a person fails to sign a written procurement contract or

fails to furnish the required security within specified time, the

procuring entity has right to cancel the procurement process or if

it deems fit can offer for acceptance of rates of lowest or most

advantageous bidder than the non-compliant successful bidder.

6.

Because of no response to the letters dated 19.4.2021

and 24.4.2021, the Board of Directors and the respondents,

(3 of 9)

[SAW-636/2021]

apprehending loss to the agriculturists and entire work getting

hampered on account of non execution of agreement for handling

and transport work, convened a meeting on 29.6.2021 and

unanimously accepted the bid of L-2 at the same rate offered to

the appellant L-1, in light of the circular dated 22.2.2021 issued in

order to absolve the respondents to overcome hurdle in bidding

process. It was only on 15.7.2021 for the first time, the appellant

requested for depositing the security in the form of bank

guarantee due to financial constraints and Covid-19 situation

being MSME.

7.

In this context, being aggrieved by the

B.O.D./respondents un