M/S Suresh Chandra Agarwal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2442 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2155/2022

M/s Suresh Chandra Agarwal, Office-1st Floor Mahaknal Terrace, 7 Shanku Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain (M.P) Through Its Proprietor Suresh Chandra Agarwal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Agarwal, Age 71 Years, R/o 7 Shanku Marg, Freeganj, Ujjain (M.P)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Additional Secretary Cum Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Joint Secretary Finance, (G & T) Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Division Udaipur.

5. The Superintending Engineer, Construction Zone, Mahi Project, Banswara.

6. The Executive Engineer, Khamera Canal Division, Mahi Project, Banswara.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. P.R. Mehta
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Saransh Vij for Mr. Sunil Beniwal,
                               AAG



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

10/02/2022

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the communication dated 31.01.2022, whereby the

respondents have asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of

Rs.1,56,62,004/- as additional performance security because

petitioner's bid was unbalanced.

(2 of 2) [CW-2155/2022]

2. Mr. P.R. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the issued involved in the present writ petition is squarely

covered, in petitioner's favour, by the judgment dated

28.01.2022, passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petition led by

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9620/2021 : M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

3. Mr. Saranash Vij associate to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG is not in

a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. He,

however, submits that the petitioner had furnished an undertaking

to abide by the terms and conditions of NIT.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the fact that the petitioner has

furnished undertaking, hardly makes any difference on petitioner's

rights, particularly when condition of depositing additional

performance security itself has been declared to be illegal and

contrary to Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

Procurement Rules, 2013.

5. The writ petition is allowed.

6. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to

perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting

upon additional performance security.

7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 89-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)