Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S Shyam Construction Company vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6980 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6980 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Shyam Construction Company vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6420/2022

M/s Shyam Construction Company, Ganeshpura, Haripura, Indokha, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur, Through Its Proprietor Ratana Ram Mawaliya, Son Of Shri Moti Ram Mawaliya, Aged 32 Years, Resident Of Indokha, Tehsil Nawa District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.

4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Indali, Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Indali, Panchayat Samiti, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

7. M/s P.r. Mayla Construction Company, Through Its Proprietor Prahlad Ram, Resident Of Village Khusia, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

10/05/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-firm challenging

the condition No.19 of e-tender notice dated 15.04.2022

(Annexure-1) issued by the Gram Panchayat, Indali, Panchayat

Samiti Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

                                             (2 of 3)                     [CW-6420/2022]



     The     condition    No.19        of     e-tender           dated    15.04.2022

(Annexure-1) provides that a bidder should have the turnover of

Rs. 1 crore in the last financial year and for that purpose the

bidder has to submit its audit report prepared by the chartered

accountant.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm has

submitted its bid in response to e-tender (Annexure-1), however,

its bid came to be rejected by the procuring authority on

25.04.2022 on the ground that it has not complied with the terms

of the e-tender (Annexure-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

condition No.19 mentioned in the e-tender (Annexure-1)

regarding the turnover of Rs.1 crore in the last financial year is

absolutely illegal. It is also submitted that this condition is

contravention of the various circulars/orders/guidelines issued by

the State Government from time to time.

It is further submitted that though, some of the Gram

Panchayats of Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City have mentioned

this condition in the e-tenders issued by them, but many of them

have not mentioned the similar condition. It is also submitted that

the Gram Panchayat Prempura, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City

has withdrawn the said condition by taking into consideration the

objection raised by some of the prospective bidders.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner-firm is neither

meeting the condition No.19 mentioned in the e-tender

(Annexure-1) nor has raised any objection regarding the said

condition No.19 before submitting its bid in response of e-tender

(Annexure-1). The petitioner-firm has raised objection regarding

(3 of 3) [CW-6420/2022]

the condition No.19 of e-tender (Annexure-1) after rejection of its

bid on 25.04.2022.

In view of the above fact that before submitting bid in

response to the e-tender (Annexure-1), the petitioner-firm has not

raised any objection before the procuring authority and has raised

objection only after rejection of its bid, I am of the opinion that

the challenge of the petitioner-firm to the said condition No.19 is

bereft of any merit as it was open for the petitioner-firm to raise

objection regarding condition No.19 before submission of its bid in

response to e-tender (Annexure-1) or before rejection of its bid.

Once the petitioner-firm has submitted its bid having knowledge of

condition No.19 and participated in tender process, it is not open

for it to turn back and challenge the condition No.19 when its bid

is rejected.

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and

the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

137-AjaySingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter