Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meenu Builders vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4307/2020
Meenu Builders, Through Its Proprietor Bhawar Singh Rathore
S/o Pabudan Singh Rathore, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of
Village Basant Vihar, Post Tilwali, Tehsil Khetari, District
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Administrator, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing
Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Zone-I, Rajasthan State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural
Marketing Board, Circle Ajmer, Ajmer.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural
Marketing Board, Division Udaipur, Udaipur.
6. Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage And
Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Rudsico), Through
Executive Engineer, 4-C-24, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269/2020
Meenu Builders, Through Its Proprietor Bhanwar Singh Rathore
S/o Shri Pabudan Singh Rathore, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of Village Basant Vihar, Post Tilwali, Tehsil Khetari, District
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Administrator, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing
Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Zone-I, Rajasthan State
Agricultural Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural
(2 of 4) [CW-4307/2020]
Marketing Board, Circle Ajmer, Ajmer.
5. The Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural
Marketing Board, Division Udaipur, Udaipur.
6. Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage And
Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Rudsico), Through
Executive Engineer 4-C-24, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Rajat Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
03/03/2022
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-firm
involved in the construction work and is registered as 'AA' Class
Contractor Firm registered with the Rajasthan Urban Drinking
Water Sewerage & Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
The petitioner-firm has submitted its bids in response to the
E-tender Notice dated 25.07.2019 floated by the Superintending
Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Circle
Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the RSAMB') in respect of
two works.
As per the case of the petitioner-firm, its technical as well as
financial bids were accepted and the petitioner-firm's bid was
found as L-3 for one work and L-2 for another work. It is asserted
by the petitioner-firm that when other bidders had refused to
accept the offer given by the department, the petitioner-firm was
asked to undertook the works, but it had also refused and,
thereafter, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner-firm in
response to the bids submitted by it for some works was returned.
(3 of 4) [CW-4307/2020]
It is the case of the petitioner-firm that after returning of the
said earnest money, the RSAMB has directed the petitioner-firm to
repay the same, which was earlier deposited in response to the
bids submitted by it.
It is also contended by the petitioner-firm that later on, the
RSAMB has blacklisted the petitioner-firm for a period of one year
and restrained it from taking participation in any of the bids issued
by the RSAMB.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has submitted that
before ordering for depositing the earnest money and black-listing
the petitioner-firm, no opportunity of hearing was provided to it. It
is also submitted that the action of the RSAMB directing the
petitioner-firm to deposit the earnest money, which was already
received by it, is absolutely illegal. It is further submitted that
later on, the petitioner-firm has made several representations, but
the same have not been considered by the department.
Several other arguments have also been raised on merits.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has
vehemently opposed the writ petition and raised several
preliminary objections and also argued on merits.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the material available on record, prima facie, I am of the
opinion that before directing the petitioner-firm to deposit the
earnest money and before black-listing it, appropriate opportunity
of hearing could have been provided to the petitioner-firm.
In such circumstances, the impugned orders dated
26.02.2020 (Annex.9), in both the petitions passed by respondent
No.5 - the Executive Engineer, RSAMB, Udaipur directing the
petitioner-firm to deposit the earnest money and the orders dated
(4 of 4) [CW-4307/2020]
27.02.2020 (Annex.10), in both the petitions passed by the
respondent No.3 - the Additional Chief Engineer, RSAMB, Jaipur
black-listing the petitioner-firm are hereby set aside.
The respondent - RSAMB is directed to consider the
representations filed by the petitioner-firm dated 1.3.2020 and
06.03.2020 (Annex.-12 and 13), in both the petitions, respectively
strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner- firm within a period of one month from
today.
With the above observations, these writ petitions are
disposed of.
Stay petitions are also disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
1-2 Arun/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
