TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure - 4) passed by Procuring Entity be quashed and set aside; ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure - 9) passed by First Appellate Authority be quashed and set aside; iii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure - 11) be quashed and set aside; iv) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents be directed to declare petitioner- Responsive. v) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the procuring entity be directed to re-evalute Technical bid and the results of Technical as well as Financial Bid be declared accordingly. vi) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER-FIRM : 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mahdav Mitra, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. Jaya Mitra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-firm, argued that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld at best amount to a procedural lapse, which is curable in terms of the Rules of 2013, and therefore the same could not constitute a valid ground for declaring the bid non-responsive. 9. Lastly, it was submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was actuated by arbitrariness and mala fides, inasmuch as the bid submitted by the petitioner-firm was substantially lower in comparison, and its acceptance would be financially beneficial to the State exchequer. It was, thus, contended that the impugned action stands vitiated for being arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the spirit of the Rules of 2013. In support of the contentions noted insofar, learned Senior counsel had placed reliance upon a catena of judgments, inter alia, M/S Bhati Contractor Firm vs. the State of Rajasthan: 2023 RJJD 41803, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs. M/S Rakesh Kumar Sikarwar and Ors.: 2024 RJ (JP) 23639 and Rosmerta Technologies Lit. vs. the State of Rajasthan: 2019 AIR (CC) 674. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : 10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Mahi Yadav, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, at the outset, placed reliance upon the bid docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbitrariness is made out, moreover, in the matter at hand no such malafides are reflected. In view of the aforementioned, learned Additional Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-firm. SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING RESPONDENT NO.4 : 15. Learned counsel has contended that, under the tender conditions relating to technical qualification, participation of joint ventures was also permissible. However, for proper appreciation of the matter, it is to be noted that the document submitted by the petitioner-firm, purporting to show annual turnover data for the last seven years, is deficient in material particulars. The said certificate was issued without any indication of the address or specific name of the firm/joint venture in whose favour it was prepared and has merely been issued in a general form, addressed "to whomsoever it may concern." 16. In the present case, the petitioner submitted the said document dated 22.05.2025 along with its technical bid. However, the certificate does not specify the name of the firm to which it relates. Moreover, the certificate does not bear any reference to GST, PAN or TIN registration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Chartered Accountant shall be submitted by the bidder along with the bid. Must Meet Requirement Form FIN-3 and FIN-4 Net worth (Latest) The Bidder/one Partner must have a minimum positive net worth of Rs. 94.36 Lakh (10% of Bid Amount). A declaration duly certified and signed by Charted Accountant shall be submitted. Must Meet Requirement 4. Experience: Criteria Requirement Compliance Requirement Documents submission/requirements 1. General Construction Experience Experience under Contracts in the role of contractor and sub contractor for at least the last Seven year (01.05.2018 to 30.04.2025), ending on the last day of previous month (30th April 2025) prior to date of invitation of NIB. Must Meet requirement CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS 18. Upon an assiduous scanning of the records, considering the contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and taking note of the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court at this juncture, prior to commenting upon the merits and [2025:RJ-JP:37501] (10 of 16) [CW-12559/2025] demerits of the matter, deems it apposite to jot down in precise the contentions put-fort....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate; (ii) Latest GSTR-3B return; (iii) Permanent Account Number (PAN); and (iv) A valid enlistment order. 19.3 The Technical Evaluation Committee, while considering the eligibility of the bidders, interpreted Rules 59, 60, and 61 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013. Upon such interpretation, the Committee held that the requirement of filing the latest GSTR-3B return was mandatory in nature. 19.4 It has also come on record, that the petitioner-firm submitted the GSTR-3B return belatedly on 23.06.2025, i.e., after expiry of the bid period, and that too for the period March, 2024- 25. 19.5 That the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 bearing No.F.2(48)AS/I/Cell/2025/Appeal-II/1310, passed by the Second Appellate Authority, categorically notes that as per the documents examined therein and the facts presented, the appellant therein was required to attach an updated GSTR Form No.3B to the tender documents, however, the present petitioner(s) have failed to comply with the said requisite and therefore, the same were declared non-responsive by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. 20. The Court further notes that there is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents, which according to the respondents was an essential documents of the tender. 40. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective sides, we are of the opinion that there is no overwhelming public interest involved in the present case, warranting our interference and for exercising our power of judicial review. In fact, any further delay would cause loss to the public exchequer and delay in commencement of the work. 41. Keeping in mind all the aforesaid judgments and the underlying principles laid down therein, we find that there is neither any arbitrariness, irrationality or bias in awarding the tender to Respondents 4 and 5. We are also of the opinion that the authority which has floated the tender, was the best judge of how the condition is to be interpreted and as such, in the facts, the interpretation of the author must be accepted." 22. This Court further takes note of Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013, which defines the concept of material deviation or omission. Relevant part of Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013 is quoted hereunder for reference: "59. Determination of responsiveness.- (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) A mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions : i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopte....