M/S Kunal Infrastructure Company vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2513 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18002/2021

M/s Kunal Infrastructure Company, G/10 Badrinath Flat, Front Of Ellora Park, Sbi Subhanpura Road, Vadodara (Gujarat) Through Its Proprietor Kunal Patel S/o Madhu Bhai Patel, Age 41 Years, G/10 Badrinath Flat, Front Of Ellora Park, Sbi Subhanpura Road, Vadodara (Gujarat)

----Petitioner Versus

1. 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 And T) Department Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

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

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

11/02/2022

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

challenged the communication dated 17.12.2021, whereby the

respondents have asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of

(2 of 2) [CW-18002/2021]

Rs.1,09,49,641/- as additional performance security because

petitioner's bid was unbalanced.

2. Mr. Pankaj 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. Piyush Bhandari 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 132-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)