Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Molecular Scientific Core Healthcare ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:35197]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9981/2025
Molecular Scientific Core Healthcare Private Limited, having its
Principal Place of Business at 18/431, Indira Nagar, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh and Bikaner Office at A-15, Durga Colony, behind
Vaishnav Dham Mandir, Bikaner, through its Authorized Signatory
- Dr. Rajesh Acharya, Son of Mahendra Kumar Acharya, Aged
About 39 Years, Resident of House No. - 4/E/446, Jai Narayan
Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Medical & Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Divisional Commissioner-Cum-President Of Rajasthan
Medicare Relief Society (R.M.R.S.), Bikaner.
3. Principal, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner.
4. Superintendent and Member Secretary, Rajasthan
Medicare Relief Society (R.M.R.S.), P.B.M. Hospital,
Bikaner.
5. Superintendent, P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv. Assisted
by Mr. M.S. Purohit, Adv. And
Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Rajpurohit on behalf of
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 01/07/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 11/08/2025
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (2 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
proceedings dated 27.03.2025 and the communication dated
22.04.2025, along with the consequential direction to continue
the contract until the contract period is completed. He is also
seeking a direction to pay the amounts due for the services
rendered under the contract.
2) Brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the
successful bidder for establishing PET Scan and Gamma Test
services on an outsourcing basis in hospitals under the
Mukhyamantri Ayushman Arogya Yojana and Rajasthan
Government Health Scheme (RGHS). Originally, the tender was
for two years, extendable by one year after review.
Subsequently, by corrigendum, the original two-year contract
period was extended to three years. The petitioner was declared
the successful tenderer for a rate contract of three years and
was accordingly awarded the work for providing PET Scan and
Gamma Test services on an outsourcing basis. The contract
commenced on 23.08.2023. He continues to be entitled to the
contract under the same work order up to 23.08.2026. Before
the contract period expired, a new tender process was initiated
for the establishment of PET Scan and Gamma Test services on
an outsourcing basis.
3) A meeting was convened by order dated 27.03.2025 of
the Sub-Committee for the finalization of the tender document
and the terms and conditions of the schedule. Consequently, a
letter dated 22.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner, allowing
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (3 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
him to continue rendering services until the new tender is
issued, in accordance with Rule 73(3)(b) of the Rajasthan
Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as, "The Rules of 2013"). Assailing the same, the
present writ petition has been filed.
4) The case of the respondent is that the contract was
awarded to the petitioner for an estimated value of Rs.400 lakhs.
Although the contract period was for three years, since the
contract value has already been exceeded, surpassing the
estimated value, the petitioner cannot insist on continuing the
contract period by demanding the supply of quantities beyond
assured quantities in the tender document. The respondents
reserve the right to vary the quantity in accordance with Rule 73
of the Rules of 2013. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist on
quantities exceeding the estimates reflected in the tender
document. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents in
inviting a new tender by finalizing the tender document and
terms and conditions, along with the consequential
communications, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
5) Heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
6) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the respondent's action in constituting the
Sub-Committee meeting to finalize the tender document and the
terms and conditions of the schedule for PET Scan and Gamma
Test services on an outsourcing basis, during the subsistence of
the petitioner's contract, is a violation of the contract period.
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (4 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
7) The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the
entire impugned proceedings are based on the assumption that
the contract is a Quantity contract rather than a Rate contract.
He submitted that the contract executed between the petitioner
and the respondents is a Rate contract. If it were a Quantity
contract, the provisions of Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Transparency
in Public Procurement Rules, 2013, could be invoked, with the
claim that the petitioner cannot insist on supply of quantities
beyond what the respondents require. However, since the
present contract is a Rate contract, Rule 73 of the Rules of 2013
is not applicable to the present facts. Therefore, the impugned
action of the respondents should be set aside, and consequential
directions may be issued to release the amounts due under the
contract.
8) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the learned AAG for respondents has submitted that the tender
document indicates that the proposed value of the service was
estimated at Rs. 400 lakhs, with an initial contract period of two
years, extendable by one year upon the satisfaction of the
procuring entity. However, a corrigendum was issued extending
the contract period to three years. The specification of the
contract value suggests that the contract is a Quantity contract
and not a Rate contract. When the contract is a Quantity
contract, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compensation or
make any claims beyond what is provided for in the tender
document.
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (5 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
9) It is also contended by learned counsel for the
respondents that the rates under the contract are significantly
higher than the prevailing market rates, and the minimum
contract value specified in the tender document has already
been complied and services worth more than Rs. 400 lakhs were
obtained from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot still
insist on continuing to provide services beyond the value
prescribed in the tender document.
10) In the light of the above contention, the nature of the
contract between the parties is required to be determined and
further question for consideration before this Court is whether
such a contract complies with the statutory requirement of
Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act and Rules.
11) A glance at the tender document, it makes clear that the
nature of the contract is a Rate contract and not a Quantity
contract. While an estimated value is indicated, the value
mentioned in the tender document does not represent the total
value of the services, so it cannot be classified as a Quantity
contract. It meets the requirements of a Rate contract as defined
under Section 36 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Act, 2012, and Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013.
12) In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Section 36 of
the RTPP Act and Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013, which are
hereunder:-
"36. Rate contract- (1) A procuring entity may
choose to engage in a rate contract procedure in
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (6 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
accordance with the rules as may be made in this
behalf, where it determines that-
(a) the need for the subject matter of
procurement is expected to arise on an
indefinite or repeated basis during a given
period of time;
(b) by virtue of the nature of the subject matter
of procurement, the need for it may arise
during a given period of time.
(2) A procuring entity may award a rate contract on
the basis of open competitive bidding or by means
of other procurement methods in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.
(3) Subject to the rules as may be made in this
behalf, the procedure for rate contract shall include
the following, namely:-
(a) the manner in which rate contract is to be
entered into, including selection of the
method of bidding to be followed; and
(b) the manner in which a procurement contract
has to be entered into using rate contract
procedure."
XXX XXX XXX
"29. Rate contract.- (1) In addition to the
conditions included in sub-section (1) of section
36 for adopting the method of rate contract, a
procuring entity may adopt the method of rate
contract, when it determines that by virtue of
the nature of subject matter of procurement,
the need for that subject matter may arise on
an urgent basis during a given period of time.
(2) The procedure for rate contract shall be as
under:-
(a) A procuring entity may award a rate
contract by the method of open
competitive bidding. If it is not possible
to adopt the method of open competitive
bidding, the procuring entity after
recording reasons may adopt another
method of procurement. An approximate
quantity of required goods, works or
service during the period shall be
indicated in the Notice Inviting Bids, but
no minimum quantity is guaranteed.
(b) The period of rate contract shall be
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (7 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
generally one year, preferably a financial
year to match with budget provisions and
levy of taxes. It may be a shorter period,
if variations in market prices are
expected to be significant. It may also be
a longer period up to maximum two
years, if the variations in market prices
are not expected to be significant. The
reasons for selecting the period for rate
contract shall be recorded.
(c) In the first stage single part or two part
bids shall be invited in accordance with
the provisions of section 13.
(d) A rate contract shall be entered, for price
without a commitment for quantity, place
and time of supply of subject matter of
procurement, with the bidder of lowest
priced bid or most advantageous bid.
(e) In the second stage supply or work order
shall be placed at the contracted price for
supply or execution of the required
quantity of the subject matter of
procurement mentioning the place of
supply or execution, delivery schedule,
etc., as and when needed.
(f) Rate contracts may be entered with more
than one bidder as parallel rate contracts
provided there is such provision in the
bidding documents, in the order of their
standing in final evaluation, by giving
them counter offer of prices of the lowest
or most advantageous bidder, in order to
secure prompt delivery of goods or
services or execution of works, if the
quantity of the subject matter of
procurement required is beyond the
capacity of the lowest bidder or the
subject matter of procurement is of
critical or vital nature.
(g) The terms and conditions of the rate
contract including provision for liquidated
damages shall be similar to those
prescribed for procurement by open
competitive bidding.
(h) The prices under a rate contract shall be
subject to price fall clause. A clause
regarding price fall shall be incorporated
in the terms and conditions of rate
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (8 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
contract. Price fall clause is a price safety
mechanism in rate contracts and it
provides that if the rate contract holder
quotes/reduces its price to render similar
goods, works or services at a price lower
than the rate contract price to anyone in
the State at any time during the currency
of the rate contract, the rate contract
price shall be automatically reduced with
effect from the date of reducing or
quoting lower price, for all delivery of the
subject matter of procurement under that
rate contract and the rate contract shall
be amended accordingly. The firms
holding parallel rate contracts shall also
be given opportunity to reduce their price
by notifying them the reduced price
giving them fifteen days time to intimate
their acceptance to the revised price.
Similarly, if a parallel rate contract
holding firm reduces its price during
currency of the rate contract, its reduced
price shall be conveyed to other parallel
rate contract holding firms and the
original rate contract holding firm for
corresponding reduction in their prices. If
any rate contract holding firm does not
agree to the reduced price, further
transaction with it, shall not be
conducted.
(i) It should be ensured that new rate
contracts become operative right after
the expiry of the existing rate contracts
without any gap. In case it is not possible
to conclude the new rate contracts due to
unavoidable reasons, the existing rate
contracts may be extended on same
price, terms and conditions for a period
not exceeding 3 months. In such cases it
shall be ensured that market prices have
not fallen down during the period for the
subject matter of procurement or its
constituents, to be procured under the
rate contract.
(j) Except as otherwise provided in this rule
all other provisions of Chapter-V shall,
mutatis mutandis, apply.
12.1) Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013 indicate the procedure of
Rate contract. The approximate quantity of required goods,
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (9 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
works or service during the period shall be indicated in the NIT,
but it is not required to mention "no minimum guaranteed
quantity". The period of Rate contract shall be generally one
year, preferably a financial year to match with budget provisions
and levy of taxes. It may be a shorter period then such a period,
if variations in market prices are expected to be significant. Such
a period may also be longer period up to maximum 2 years, if
the variations in market prices are not expected to be significant.
The reasons for selecting the period for rate contract shall be
recorded.
13) In the present case, the Rate contract period originally
notified was for two years, extendable based on review for every
one year upon the satisfaction of the procuring entity. However,
by way of corrigendum, the contract period was extended to
three years instead of two. This three-year Rate contract period
is contrary to Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013, which prescribes a
maximum contract period of two years, and that too only in
cases where rate variation is not significant. The contract
executed in the present case is for three years, which exceeds
the permissible duration under Rule 29. Any part of the contract
period beyond two years cannot be considered valid as it violates
Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013.
14) The entire proposed action of the respondents, as
indicated in the impugned communication, was based on the
assumption that the contract was a Quantity contract and not a
Rate contract. Unfortunately, the tender document was not duly
[2025:RJ-JD:35197] (10 of 10) [CW-9981/2025]
considered, and the respondents proceeded on the incorrect
premise that the contract was a Quantity contract. By referring
to Rule 73 of the Rules of 2013, they contended that under a
Quantity contract, the petitioner cannot claim any compensation
or insist on short supply orders.
15) This premise adopted by the respondents, treating the
present contract as a Quantity contract, is incorrect. It is, in fact,
a Rate contract. The petitioner's maximum contract period is two
years, and he cannot claim to continue beyond that period based
on the corrigendum or execution of the contract, as that would
be contrary to Rule 29 of the Rules of 2013. The petitioner is
entitled to continue rendering outsourced PET Scan and Gamma
Test services only up to 23.08.2025. Thereafter, he has no right
to continue.
16) In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
direction that the respondents shall not engage any other
contract for rendering PET Scan and Gamma Test services on
outsourcing basis till 23.08.2025. The respondents are at liberty
to proceed with the tender process indicating the proposed
tender is for the period subsequent to 23.08.2025.
17) In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
18) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
91-NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
