HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9947/2021

M/s Abp Travels And Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., (Consortium

Of M/s Abp Travels And Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. (Lead

Member), M/s Samaan Foundation And Afflux Innovations Pvt.

Ltd.) Through The Authorised Signatory Dr. Yudhveer Singh

Balwada S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Singh, Aged About 38 Years,

Having Its Registered Office At A-38, West Patel Nagar, Patel

Nagar, New Delhi.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

National Health Mission, Through Director, 3Rd Floor, Nhm

Building, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,

Jaipur.

2.

Gvk Emergency Management And Research Institute,

Through Its Vice President Having Its Registered Office At

Devar Yamzal, Medchal Road, Secunderabad-500078,

Telangana(India).

3.

M/s Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Having Its

Registered Office At 7Th Floor, Evershine, Vaishali Nagar,

Jaipur-302012 (Lead Member Of Consortium Of M/s

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, M/s Community

Action Through Motivational Programme Camp And

Golden Path Lab Private Limited)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Rajat Ranjan

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

20/09/2021

1.

A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Senior

Counsel for the respondents that an appeal has been preferred

under Section 38 of the RTPP Act by the petitioner assailing his

(2 of 7)

[CW-9947/2021]

exclusion and ousting from the technical bid and while the said

appeal is pending wherein the same objection as taken as in the

present writ petition, present writ petition would not lie. Secondly,

learned Senior Counsel has taken an objection that the writ

petition deserves to be dismissed for concealment and omission of

facts and to that extent he has taken this Court to the averments

made in Para 20 of the writ petition and submits that so far as the

respondents are concerned, it had actually filed a correct affidavit

as per format of affidavit 10A1 and did not conceal any facts and

therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

2.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

pointed out that the second proviso to Section 38(1) provides that

in case a procuring entity evaluates the technical bid before

opening of the financial bid, an appeal related to the matter of

financial bid may be filed only by a bidder whose technical bid is

found to be acceptable. Therefore, learned counsel submits that

appeal would not lie as the financial bid has already been opened.

3.

Learned counsel submits that there is no concealment of

facts so far as petitioner is concerned. On the other hand, the

main case of the petitioner itself is that the respondents have filed

a false affidavit as per format Annexure-10A1 and have wrongly

concealed the fact that the charge-sheet had already been filed

against the Directors of the respondents-companies. It is stated

that in the affidavit, while in the main part, it is mentioned that no

investigation statutory body/Government agency of any State

Government/Central Government is undertaken or pending against

us or any of our promoters/Directors, by an asterisk it has been

mentioned that recently case has been filed by investigating

agencies against our promoters/Directors.

(3 of 7)

[CW-9947/2021]

4.

To the said aspect learned counsel appearing for the

respondents has pointed out that an explanation was sought from

the respondents and the respondents have already given their

detailed explanation pointing out that Directors against whom the

criminal case has been registered in relation to their capacity as

Directors to another company viz; Mumbai International Airport

Pvt. Ltd. (MIAL) and as the same Directors are also the Directors

of the present company, it would not mean that a criminal c