Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Manaram Ganpatram And Co vs State And Ors on 4 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 312/2017
M/s Manaram Ganpatram And Co. A-13 Jawahar Nagar, Jaisalmer
Road, Bikaner Through Its Partner Madan, R/o B-17, Jawahar
Nagar, Jaisalmer Road, Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. Chief Engineer, National Highways, Public Works
Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department , Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 313/2017
M/s Manaram Ganpatram And Co., A-13 Jawahar Nagar,
Jaisalmer Road, Bikaner Through Its Partner Mada, R/o B-17,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaisalmer Road, Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. Chief Engineer, National Highwaya, Public Works
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.
3. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
Reserved on 17/02/2025
Pronounced on 04/04/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant special appeals have been preferred against the
order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.2064/2008 &
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-312/2017]
1349/2008, whereby the said two identical writ petitions preferred
by the appellant (writ petitioners), being arose out of a common
set of events, were dismissed vide the said common impugned
order.
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the
respondents had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on
07.11.2007 for Three Projects, as mentioned therein, and the last
date for submission of the bids was 05.12.2007. The respondents,
after examining the bids issued a letter dated 10.12.2007 whereby
it pointed out certain deficiencies in the bid of the appellant and
the appellant was directed to explain the same, which he did not.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant (writ
petitioner) that as it could not respond to the clarifications sought
regarding the deficiencies in the bid submitted by the appellant,
by 14.12.2007, which was the deadline for submitting
clarifications as per the letter dated 10.12.2007. Consequently,
the bid was to be declared non-responsive. Thus, the financial bid
ought not to have been opened, because though the appellant was
the lowest bidder, however it could not have been allowed to
continue its participation in the bid process as its bid was to be
rejected for being non-responsive.
3.1. It was further submitted that the appellant withdrew its bid
vide letter dated 22.12.2007 because he did not hear anything
from the respondents in consequence of the appellant not
submitting the clarifications sought by the respondents vide letter
dated 10.12.2007 before the prescribed deadline i.e. 14.12.2007.
However, as per learned counsel, without considering the case and
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-312/2017]
situation of the appellant, the respondents have gone ahead to
debar the appellant for future tenders vide order dated
08.02.2208, and has also forfeited its security amount vide letter
dated 10.03.2008.
3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the requirement
of the NIT, the bidders were supposed to submit bids complete in
all respects, and in case there was any shortcomings, the bid was
to be declared as non-responsive as per the applicable provisions.
3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant to his
best belief had complied with all the conditions of the bidding
process, which included payment of the earnest money, as per the
Standard Bidding Document (SBD), but since the appellant could
clarify the objections raised, the appellant's continuance to the
financial bid was not called for and it against the applicable
provisions.
3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the technical bid was
submitted in time and the clarifications sought by the respondents
on 10.12.2007 remained unanswered which paved way for no
further action on the bid of the appellant.
3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the list of responsive
financial bidders was to be finalized from the financial bids eligible
for consideration as per Clause 23.4 (iii) & (iv) of the SBD, and as
the appellant could not clarify, the appellant's bid should have
been rejected as he could not qualify as a responsive financial
bidder for the reason that the bid was not in conformity with all
the conditions, specifications and bidding documents, thus, it had
material deviation/reservations.
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-312/2017]
3.6. Learned counsel also submitted that further as per Clause
26.3 of the SBD, if the financial bid was not substantially
responsive, it was subject to be rejected and the appellant's case
fell under the same.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, appearing on behalf of the
respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, submitted that act of the appellant herein
was coupled with deliberate mal-intent and was made to frustrate
the entire bid process, despite him being a responsible 'AA Class'
Contractor registered with P.W.D. since the year 1995.
4.1. It was submitted that the appellant wanted to wriggle out of
the contract, without adhering to the tender process, in order to
cause intentional harm to the process of bidding. It was further
submitted that such conduct of the appellant clearly called for
forfeiting of its security and debarring its participation in future
tenders.
4.2. Learned Council further submitted that if the appellant had
any grievance, there was a Standing Committee for Settlement of
Disputes with respect to the bids as per Clause 23 of the Public
Works Financial and Accounts Rules (PWF&AR), before whom the
appellant could make appropriate representation, but failed to
make the same.
4.3. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court has rightly considered the matter and dismissed the
writ petitions.
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-312/2017]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court, after examining the matter, observes that the NIT
was issued for Three Projects mentioned therein on 07.11.2007;
last date for submission of bids was 05.12.2007. This Court
further finds that a clarification was sought by the respondents
from the appellant vide letter dated 10.12.2007 regarding certain
deficiencies in its bid, but the appellant failed to furnish the
necessary clarification.
7. This Court also finds that the deficiencies have been noted
by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the impugned
order dated 06.02.2017, whereby the provision for bid opening as
well as the Rules in question alongwith Debarring & Suspension
provisions have been dealt with at length.
8. This Court thus finds that the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that 'AA Class
Contractor (appellant herein) who is operating in the public sphere
since 1995, cannot be expected to wriggle out of a contract in the
shade of not furnishing the necessary clarification regarding its bid
to the objections raised by respondents. Had the appellant
clarified and it would not have succeeded, then it would a different
matter, but here the non-responsiveness of the appellant shows
that there was a deliberate effort to come out of the tender in
question. The act of the appellant does not deserve any kind of
indulgence as has rightly been deprecated by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court, while upholding the orders passed by
[2025:RJ-JD:11299-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-312/2017]
the respondents, in so debarring the appellant and forfeiting his
security.
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so
as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeals.
10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
