Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vprpl-Gkr Jv vs Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1042/2025
VPRPL-GKR JV, having its office at 32, Second Floor, Industrial
Estate, B-31, New Power House Rd, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342003
through its authorized representative mr. Suresh Chand Jain S/o
Pushpchand Khivsara aged about 61 Year.
----Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Group
General Manager (Contracts), Having Its Office At C-89 Jan Path
Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur - 302015.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur
Mr. Priyansh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sunil Purohit & Mohd. Amaan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
Reserved on 18/08/2025
Pronounced on 21/08/2025
Per Mr. Bipin Gupta, J:
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged
the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12395/2025, whereby, the writ petition challenging the order
dated 30.06.2025 was dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the
appellant's bid was found to be non-responsive in the technical bid
evaluation process and thus the appellant was disqualified from
participation in the tender process.
2. Shorn of the fact, respondent had issued a Notice Inviting
Tender (NIT) for work related to hiring of Heavy Earth Moving
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
Equipment for removal of overburden, raising, loading and
transportation etc. of saleable lignite and allied works at Sonari
Lignite Mines, District Barmer (Rajasthan). The appellant
submitted the bid and on the consideration of the same, appellant
was not found qualified as per the pre-qualification criteria and
provisions of the tender document.
3. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 29.07.2025,
while considering the provisions of the tender document,
specifically condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document arrived
at a finding that one of the appellant's contract has been
terminated by the Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) on
account of breach of conditions. Further, the writ petition has been
dismissed as there being alternative remedy being available.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
condition No. 2.22.1 of the tender document has not been applied
correctly and has been misinterpreted in the present case. Since
there has been no adjudication by any Competent Authority
regarding the breach of condition having been committed by the
appellant, therefore condition No. 2.22.1 is not applicable.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that
an illegal termination of contract of a lead member of the
appellant's joint venture was challenged before the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh and vide order dated 30.09.2022, the High Court
stayed the order of blacklisting and held that the blacklisting shall
not come in the way of the other contracts of the appellant with
various other department/corporation/local bodies etc. and
therefore, condition No. 2.22.1 cannot be invoked.
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
6. Another argument raised for the first time by the appellant is
that the condition No.2.22.1 is contrary to provisions of Rajasthan
Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as 'RTPP Act, 2012') and therefore, he can raise the
legal issue in appeal and therefore, same be declared to be illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his
arguments -
(i) Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive
Officer & Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 3784.
(ii) K. Lubna & Ors. Vs. Beevi & Ors.; (2020) 2 SCC 524.
(iii) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors.; (2016)
1 SCC 724.
8. Per contra learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that condition No. 2.22.1(c) applies in case
if the contract of an entity has been terminated on account of
breach of conditions of the contract. Since the appellant's
termination order issued by the Indore Smart City Development
Ltd. (ISCDL) has not been stayed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, and only order of blacklisting has been stayed, therefore,
the termination order remains in currency and therefore,
according to condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document, the
appellant is not qualified and is a non-performing party.
9. We have heard the counsels for the parties and scanned the
material available on record.
10. Tender condition No. 2.22 reads as under:
"2.22 Evaluation of Techno-Commercial Bid
2.22.1 The Bidder, including an individual or any of its
Joint Venture member, should not be a non performing
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
party on the bid submission date. The Bidder, including
any Joint Venture Member, shall be deemed to be a
non-performing party if it attracts any of the following
parameters:
a) Rated as an unsatisfactory performing entity/non-
performing entity by the Company or any State/Central
Government Organization/Department and so notified
on the website of that organization.
b) Has failed to perform, for the any of the works
assigned/awarded by the Company or any State/Central
Government Organization/Department in the last 3
(three) years, as evidenced by imposition of a penalty
by an arbitral or judicial authority or a judicial
pronouncement or arbitral award against the Bidder,
including individual or any of its Joint Venture Member,
as the case may be.
c) Has been expelled or the contract terminated
by the Company or any State/Central Government
Organization/ Department or its implementing
agencies for breach of such Bidder, including
individual or any of its joint Venture Member."
11. The relevant portion of the order of termination dated
08.09.2022 of ISCDL is reproduced as under:
"Due to your lack of planning, default in execution and
failure in deployment of adequate resources to perform
your obligations as per contract scope and conditions in
order to complete the project, major time of Indore
Smart City has been wasted and has led to poor water
supply and unhygienic sewerage conditions for residents
of ABD area. Hence, keeping all these points in
consideration in the meeting of Board of Directors of
ISCDL, it has been decided to terminate this contract
with immediate effect. As a result of termination,
your deposit amount in form of Performance bank
guarantee of BG No.18721GPER006918 of Rs.
7,48,79,910.00/- and Security deposit Rs.
3,70,81,793.00/- and hold amount of Rs.
83,94,335.00/- is hereby forfeited and your firm M/s
Vishnu Prakash R. Punglia Ltd. and Sub-Contracting
Agency M/s Teerth Gopicon Pvt. Ltd. is debarred in
participation of fore-coming tenders of ISCDL and
Indore Municipal Corporation for 5 years."
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
12. The case of the appellant is that condition No. 2.22.1(c) shall
be applied only if there is an adjudication by the Competent Court
regarding the fact of appellant's termination on account of default.
The said submission is not tenable as on a bare reading of
condition No. 2.22.1(c) it is clear that it does not require any
adjudication and only mandates that if a contract has been
terminated for breach of conditions of a contract then such bidder
cannot be permitted to participate in the tender process.
13. Further, reading of the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.R/12)
demonstrates that an agency namely Indore Smart City
Development Ltd. (ISCDL) had terminated the contract of one of
the joint ventures of the appellant i.e. Vishnu Prakash R. Pungalia
Ltd. (VPRPL) on account of default in execution and failure in
deployment of adequate resources to perform the obligation. On
bare perusal of the said order, it is clearly deducible that the
termination of the appellant's joint venture contract by ISCDL was
nothing short on account of breach of condition of the contract
and therefore also, the action of the respondent cannot be termed
arbitrary.
14. The argument of the appellant that the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh vide order dated 30.09.2022 has stayed the order of
blacklisting and has held that the blacklisting order shall not come
in the way of the appellant, and therefore, the contention that he
cannot be debarred from participating in the present tender is also
not tenable as the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its
order dated 30.09.2022 has only stayed the order of blacklisting
but there is no stay on termination and hence, termination is in
currency and therefore, disqualification is justified.
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
15. So far as last argument of the appellant that condition
No.2.22.1 is contrary to the provision of RTPP Act, 2012. Though,
this has been raised for the first time in appeal but the same will
also not help the appellant as he had not challenged the condition
before participating in the tender process. It is only after having
participated and non suited, the appellant has raised this issue
which cannot be permitted to be raised as it is settled principle of
law that once the game has started then the rules of the game
cannot be challenged and therefore also, the disqualification is
justified.
16. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra), as relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant, is clearly distinguishable, as that
was a case where after the acceptance of the tender of the
appellant therein, and after issuance of work order, at the behest
of a third person, the tender as well work order was cancelled,
whereas in the present case, the appellant has not even been
found 'qualified' as he stood disqualified based on the conditions
prescribed under condition No. 2.22.1(c).
17. The judgment of Bandeep Singh(supra) is not relevant as
the facts of that case are clearly on different footing as it
pertained to a situation where re-auction of properties was
ordered without affording any sustainable justification.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent on being asked about
stage of the tender informed that fresh LOI/work order has been
issued and work is in progress.
19. Taking into consideration the facts as discussed above, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
elaborately considered each and every aspect of the case and has
dealt with each contention as raised in the petition and thus does
not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any
interference. Hence, the present appeal being devoid of merits
deserves to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
21. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
4-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
