Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Multitech Automation vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:3914]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 350/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, M/s Multitech Automation Having Its
Office At 560-B, 8Th C- Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Through Its
Sole Proprietor Mr. Anoop Kothari, S/o Late Shri C.m. Kothari,
Aged About 42 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Training), Directorate Of Technical Education
(Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur, W-6 Gaurav Path Jodhpur.
3. The Commissioner, Department Of Skill, Employment And
Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Technosys Systems, B-16B, Indrapuri Satya Nagar,
Jhotwara Jaipur Through Its Manager Mr. Jatin Acharya.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 326/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, Having Its Office At 560-B, 8Th C-
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Anoop
Kothari S/o Late Shri C.m. Kothari, Aged About 42 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (Training)
Rajasthan, Jodhpur, W-6 Gaurav Path Jodhpur.
3. The Commissioner, Department Of Skill, Employment And
Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Technosys Systems, B-16B, Indrapuri Satya Nagar,
Jhotwara Jaipur Through Its Manager Mr. Jatin Acharya.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 365/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, Having Its Office At 560-B, 8Th C-
(Downloaded on 21/01/2025 at 09:56:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3914] (2 of 5) [CW-350/2025]
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Anoop
Kothari, S/o Late Shri C.m. Kothari, Aged About 42 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Skill, Employment And Entrepreneurship
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, (Training), Directorate Of Technical
Education (Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur, W-6 Gaurav Path
Jodhpur.
3. The Commissioner, Department Of Skill, Employment And
Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shretha Mathur, Mr. Nishant Bora,
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi & Ms. Divya
Bapna
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki &
Mr. Jai Pareek
Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG
assisted by Ms. Mehali Mehta &
Mr. Vikram Choudhary
Mr. Jayant Mahecha
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
21/01/2025
1. The present writ petitions have been filed aggrieved of the
orders dated 05.12.2024 and 24.12.2024.
2. The case of the petitioner is that despite it being declared
responsive in the technical bid at the first instance by the
Procuring Authority vide order dated 29.11.2024, on an appeal
been filed by one M/s Technosys Systems, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Respondent No.4), the First Appellate Authority proceeded on to
[2025:RJ-JD:3914] (3 of 5) [CW-350/2025]
set aside the said order dated 29.11.2024 without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the First Appellate Authority decided against the petitioner-
Firm on the premise that the it had submitted wrong declaration
regarding it not being blacklisted whereas it had been blacklisted
by the Agricultural University, Jodhpur on 17.01.2023.
4. The said order dated 17.01.2023 was stayed by this Court in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17105/2024 (M/s Multitech Automation
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) vide order dated 21.10.2024 and
the petitioner-Firm submitted its bid only after the said interim
order been passed on 21.10.2024.
5. Considering the said interim order dated 21.10.2024 only,
the petitioner-Firm was declared responsive by the Procuring
Authority. The said order was set aside by the First Appellate
Authority without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner-Firm despite it having been impleaded as respondent in
the First Appeal.
6. Counsel further submits that the Procuring Authority could
not even have passed the order dated 05.12.2024 in terms of Rule
38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules,
2013 because as per the said provision the Procuring Authority
cannot be the Appellate Authority.
In support of this submission, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in
the case of Yashi Consulting vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15034/2023 (decided on
30.11.2023).
[2025:RJ-JD:3914] (4 of 5) [CW-350/2025]
7. Counsel further submits that the Second Appellate Authority
too, without dealing with the ground of non-opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and of the non-competence of the Procuring
Authority to pass the order dated 05.12.2024, dismissed its
appeal on the ground which had already been taken into
consideration by the Procuring Authority while declaring the
petitioner-Firm responsive on 29.11.2024.
8. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
submits that the order was rightly passed by the First appellate
Authority as the petitioner-firm had filed a false
affidavit/declaration comprising of total incorrect facts which was a
clear breach of the tender conditions.
However, he is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to
why the petitioner-Firm was not granted an opportunity of hearing
by the First Appellate Authority and further as to whether the
Procuring Authority was the competent authority to pass the
order dated 05.12.2024.
9. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
10. At this stage, counsel appearing for private respondent No.4,
on instructions, submits that he has no objection if the orders
impugned are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the
First Appellate Authority to pass orders afresh after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Firm.
11. Learned AAG also does not refute the said submission and
submits that the matters be remanded back to the First Appellate
Authority to be decided afresh.
12. In view of the submission made, the orders impugned are
hereby quashed and set aside. Let the matters be remanded back
[2025:RJ-JD:3914] (5 of 5) [CW-350/2025]
to respondent No.3- Commissioner, Department Of Skill,
Employment And Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur for decision
afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-
Firm.
13. Respondent No.3 shall be under an obligation to pass a
decision afresh within a period of two weeks from now. The
petitioner, concerned State authorities/representatives as well as
the private respondents (whosoever has been issued the work
order) shall remain present before the Commissioner on
27.01.2025 and the Commissioner shall not be under an obligation
to issue fresh notices to any of the parties.
14. Till the decision afresh is taken by the First Appellate
Authority i.e. respondent No.3-Commissioner, Department Of Skill,
Employment And Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur, the work
orders issued qua the work in question and the agreements as
executed between the parties shall not be acted upon.
15. With the above directions, the present writ petitions are
disposed of.
16. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
708,709,711-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
