Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Multitech Automation vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 a-w connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3497/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, R/o 505 7 th B Road Sardarpura
Jodhpur through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Anoop Kothari S/o Late
Shri C.M. Kothari.aged 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, Enployment and
Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Technosys Systems, B-16B Indrapuri Satya Nagar,
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 341/2025
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. M/s Puri Scientific Works through Director Keshav Puri S/o
Deepak Puri, aged about 25 years, R/o 1-B Fibune
Colony, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 369/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, having its Office at 560-B, 8 th 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,
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (2 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
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. M/s Puri Scientific Works through Director Keshav Puri S/o
Deepak Puri, aged about 25 years, R/o 1-B Fibune
Colony, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 370/2025
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 (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
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, having its Office at 505 7th B Road
Sardarpura Jodhpur through its Sole Proprietor Anoop Kothari S/
o Late 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
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6362/2025
M/s Multitech Automation, having its Office at 505 7 th B Road
Sardarpura Jodhpur through its Sole Proprietor Mr. Anoop
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (3 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
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 Enterpreneurship
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. M/s El - Tronics, having address at 86/87A, Dhuleshwar
Garden C Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Udit Mathur,
Ms. Shrestha Mathur, Ms. Divya
Bapna and Mr. Harshwardhan Thanvi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh
Shekhawat.
Mr. Vikram Singh Choudhary for Mr.
I.R. Choudhary, AAG.
Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, Mr. Sachin Lohiya,
Mr. Jayant Mahecha and Mr. Shyam
Kant Sharma.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
Pronounced on :12/05/2025
1. In S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025, 341/2025, 369/2025, 370/2025
and 3502/2025, arguments were heard and concluded and the order
was reserved on 25.03.2025 and in S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025, involving
identical controversy, arguments were heard and concluded and the
order was reserved on 26.03.2025. This batch of writ petitions involving
identical controversy is being decided by this common order. The
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (4 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
have been filed with the following respective prayers:
In S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025
(Annexure-A/24) passed by the Appellate Authority may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated
05.12.2024 (Annexure-16) may also be quashed and set
aside.
(c) That the respondent authorities may further be
directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and
award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along
with all consequential benefits.
(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (E-bid information
No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item No.6 i.e. Solar
Trade Panels and further proceedings pursuant thereto
may be ordered to be cancelled.
(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
In S.B.C.W.P. No.341/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) the impugned corrigendum dated 05.12.2024
(Annexure-14 ) may be quashed and set aside.
(b) That the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-15)
passed by respondent no. 02 may also be quashed and set
aside.
(c) That the respondent authorities may further be
directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and
award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along
with all consequential benefits.
(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take
any coercive action against the petitioner firm.
(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (5 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
In S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) That the impugned corrigendum dated 06.12.2024
(Annexure A/14) may be quashed and set aside.
(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated
06.12.2024 (Annexure A/15) may also be quashed and set
aside.
(c) That the respondent authorities may further be
directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and
award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along
with all consequential benefits.
(d) The financial bid and subsequent proceedings issued in
favour of any other person, if any may kindly be set aside
(e) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.-2) (E-bid
information No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item
No.03 control and protection equipment and further
proceedings pursuant thereto may be ordered to be
cancelled.
(f) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take
any coercive action against the petitioner firm.
(g) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
In S.B.C.W.P. No.370/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) the impugned corrigendum dated 05.12.2024
(Annexure-13) may be quashed and set aside.
(b) That the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-14)
passed by respondent no. 02 may also be quashed and set
aside.
(c) That the respondent authorities may further be
directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and
award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along
with all consequential benefits.
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (6 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take
any coercive action against the petitioner firm.
(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances. of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
In S.B.C.W.P. No.3502/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025
(Annexure-A/27) passed by the Appellate Authority may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated 06.12.2024
(Annexure-16) may also be quashed and set aside.
(c) That the respondent authorities may further be
directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and
award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along
with all consequential benefits.
(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (E-bid information
No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item No.1 i.e.
electrical panels and further proceedings pursuant thereto
may be ordered to be cancelled.
(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
In S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and
by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025
(Annexure-A/20) passed by the Appellate Authority may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b) The impugned corrigendum dated 06.12.2024
(Annexure A/14) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(c) That the revised technical evaluation dated 06.12.2024
may also be quashed and set aside.
(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in
alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take
any coercive action against the petitioner firm.
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (7 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
2. The Petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm, has preferred
the S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025, 3502/2025 and 6362/2025
challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24)
passed by Commissioner, Department of Skill, Employment and
Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur, whereby the procurement
entity has been given liberty to take appropriate action against the
petitioner as the petitioner stood blacklisted/debarred on the date
of publication of the bid i.e., 25.09.2024 as per criterion
prescribed at point no.4 of pre-qualification/eligibility criteria of
Bid document (Although, in the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/
24) the date of publication of bid has been mentioned as
26.09.2024 but this court from the perusal of NIT (Annex.A/2)
finds that the date of publication of bid is 25.09.2025); and also
challenging the revised technical evaluation report (s) dated
05.12.2024/06.12.2024 whereby petitioner's bid qua Item Nos.6,
1 and 2 respectively have been held to be non-responsive. The
petitioner has filed S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025
challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 and the corrigendum
dated 05.12.2024 passed by Director (training), Directorate of
Technical Education (Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur whereby NIT
qua item Nos.4 and 11 has been cancelled. The petitioner has filed
S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 challenging the corrigendum dated
06.12.2024 passed by Director (training), Directorate of Technical
Education (Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur as well as the revised
technical evaluation report dated 06.12.2024, whereby the
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (8 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
petitioner's technical bid qua item no.3 of NIT has been held to be
non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner has furnished
false affidavit/declaration regarding blacklisting/debarment.
3. Although the instant writ petitions pertain to different items
of the same NIT however, as all of these writ petitions involve
identical issues, the same are being decided by this common
order, and the facts of S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025 : M/s Multitech
Automation vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., are being taken
illustratively for the sake of convenience.
FACTS:
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent
authorities issued a Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') on 25.09.2024
(Annex.A/2) inviting Bids for total 18 items from the dealers to
supply machinery, tools, equipment, furniture etc. to various
Government Industrial Training Institutes in the State of
Rajasthan. One of the essential criteria, mentioned in the Bid
document at Point No.4 of Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria
was with regard to submission of Declaration in form of Annexure-
P to the effect that the bidder is not under
investigation/charged/prosecuted/debarred/ blacklisted/ declared
having dis-satisfactory performance by any State or Central
Government/Semi-Government Organization etc. for supply of
material out operations and maintenance work as on the date of
publication of the NIT dated 25.09.2024. And as per Point No.5 of
Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria an affidavit in form of
Annexure-Q was also required to be furnished to the effect that
the information furnished by the bidder in the bid is correct and
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (9 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
the bidder shall be solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false
information in the Bid.
5. The petitioner firm was, however, ordered to be blacklisted
by Agriculture University Jodhpur vide order dated 17.01.2023
(Annex.A/6) (hereinafter as 'blacklisting order') for a period of
three years on account of non-satisfactory performance of
obligation. In the writ petition, it has been pleaded that the said
blacklisting order was never communicated to the petitioner firm
and the petitioner came to know of passing of such order on
10.10.2024 i.e. only after issuance of the NIT in question. The
petitioner after coming to know of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/
6), preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP
No.17105/2024 while stating that the blacklisting order (Annex.A/
6) was never communicated to the petitioner firm nor was it ever
provided an opportunity of being heard. In the aforesaid writ
petition, an interim order was granted by a co-ordinate bench of
this court on 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) while staying the effect and
operation of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6) to the extent of
blacklisting the petitioner firm.
6. Subsequent to the passing of the interim order dated
21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9), the petitioner firm submitted its bid qua
Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11 along with relevant
Declaration/affidavit before the respondent authorities on
21.10.2024.
7. After submission of the Bids, on a complaint made by other
bidder i.e., M/s Technosys Systems, a communication dated
20.11.2024 via e-mail was received by the petitioner seeking
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (10 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
clarification as to why order of blacklisting (Annex.A/6) against the
petitioner was not disclosed in the Bid document. On receipt of the
communication dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner on 24.11.2024
submitted clarification that on the date of issuance of the NIT, the
petitioner was not in the knowledge of blacklisting order dated
17.01.2023 and even otherwise vide an interim order dated
21.10.2024 passed in SBCWP No.17105/2024 the effect and
operation of order dated 17.01.2023 was stayed to the extent of
blacklisting the petitioner firm.
8. Thereafter, the respondent Department on 29.11.2024
opened the Technical Bid declaring the petitioner as technically
qualified/responsive qua item nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11. However,
the private respondent No.4 (M/s Technosys Systems) preferred
appeal before the Commissioner of the respondent Department
(first appellate authority) feeling aggrieved of declaration of
petitioner's Technical Bid as responsive qua item Nos.1 and 6. It is
the case of the petitioner that though it was impleaded as party
respondent in the appeal, however, the petitioner was not served
with any notice of the appellate proceedings and it was also not
given an opportunity of hearing in the said proceedings.
9. Thereafter, the Director (Training) of the respondent
Department, who according to the pleadings of the petitioner was
not competent to hear appeal, proceeded to hear the appeal ex-
parte against the petitioner and passed the order dated
05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) whereby the petitioner firm was
declared non-responsive qua Item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 of the NIT
and the NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 was cancelled. The
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (11 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
respondent authorities thereafter, in compliance of order dated
05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15), issued revised technical evaluation
report dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), whereby, the petitioner's
technical bid was held to be non-responsive qua item no.6. The
respondent authorities thereafter, proceeded to open Financial Bid
in favour of private respondent, while treating it to be lowest
bidder for the purpose of execution of the work. Subsequently, the
petitioner preferred a Second appeal against the order dated
05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15), which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 24.12.2024.
10. Aggrieved by orders dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) and
24.12.2024, as also revised technical evaluation report dated
05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), the petitioner preferred a writ petition
before this Court being SBCWP No.350/2025. The said writ
petition was heard along with other writ petitions viz. CWP
Nos.326/2025 (qua Item no.1) and 365/2025 (qua item no.2) and
the orders dated 24.12.2024 and 05.12.2024 passed by earlier
first and second appellate authorities were set aside and the writ
petitions were disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/
21) by a coordinate bench of this court while directing the
appellate authority to decide the matter afresh after affording
opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
11. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.01.2025
(Annex.A/21), the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner
and submitted its written submission.
12. The appellate authority after considering the arguments and
material placed before it, vide order impugned dated 29.01.2025
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (12 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
(Annex.A/24) proceeded to hold the petitioner ineligible as it stood
blacklisted/debarred on the date of publication of the NIT i.e.
25.09.2024 as per criterion prescribed at point no.4 of the pre-
qualification/eligibility criteria of the Bid document.
13. Aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24) passed
by the first appellate authority as well as the revised technical
evaluation report dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), the petitioner
has preferred the S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025. For the sake of better
understanding the relevant information pertaining to all the
instant writ petitions and the respective orders impugned is being
extracted in a tabular form as under:
S,No. W.P. No. Item No. of NIT Impugned Order (s)
Appellate Order dt. 29.01.2025
1. S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025 6 and Revised Technical Evaluation
Report dt.05.12.2024
Corrigendum dt.05.12.2024 and
Appellate order dt.05.12.2024
Corrigendum dt.06.12.2024 and
3. S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 3 Revised Technical Evaluation
dt.06.12.2024
Corrigendum dt.05.12.2024 and
Appellate order dt.05.12.2024
Appellate order dt.29.01.2025 and
5. S.B.C.W.P. No.3502/2025 1 Revised Technical Evaluation
Report dt.06.12.2024
Appellate order dt.29.01.2025,
Corrigendum dt.06.12.2024 and
Revised Technical Evaluation
Report dt.06.12.2024
SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24) has been passed without
application of mind as the contentions raised by the petitioner
therein were not considered by the respondent authorities, thus,
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (13 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
the same is against the principle of natural justice. He also
submitted that the first appellate authority (Commissioner) has
erred in disposing of the appeal merely on the ground that the
petitioner has been unable to establish its case whereas the
appeal was filed by M/s Technosys Systems and obligation was
upon it to establish the case and not on the petitioner. He also
submitted that in three matters pertaining to bid submitted by the
petitioner qua Item No.1, 2 and 6 of the NIT, the first appellate
authority (commissioner) has already taken a view while relying
upon the orders of earlier first appellate authority (Director) and
Second appellate authority which were already quashed and set
aside vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/21) by the coordinate
bench of this court in earlier round of litigation, thus, filing a
second appeal against the same would have been a futile exercise
and for the same reasons, no efficacious alternative remedy of
first appeal is available to the petitioner in the matters arising out
of rejection of bid qua item no. 4, 11 and 3 as well. He also
submitted that the respondent authorities have already went on to
issue work order for certain items of the NIT, thus, the petitioner
cannot be forced to avail the alternative remedy. He also
submitted that though the NIT qua item no.4 and 11 have been
cancelled but the writ petitions in respect to those would become
infructuous only for the purpose of grant of work order and not for
the purpose of setting aside the order dated 05.12.2024
(Annex.A/15) passed by first appellate authority (Director) qua
item no.4 and 11 of the NIT whereby petitioner was disqualified as
the same may cause prejudice to the petitioner in the future
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (14 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
tender process. He also submitted that no reason for the
cancellation of NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 have been provided by
the respondent authority, which is required under Section 26 of
the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012
(hereinafter as 'RTPP Act').
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that vide
interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) the effect and
operation of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6) was stayed hence,
by virtue of interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9), which
would apply retrospectively, the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6)
would be deemed to be non-existent as if it was never passed. He
also submitted that the date of submitting affidavit is relevant and
not the date of notarizing it, however, the appellate authority has
misconstrued the effect of a document getting attested by a
notary and execution of the document. He, thus, submitted that
since the declaration/affidavit in the present case was furnished
on 21.10.2024 i.e. after passing of the interim order on the same
day, the contents of the same cannot be said to be devoid of its
veracity.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while adverting to Point
No.4 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/ Eligibility Criteria of the Bid
Document, submitted that the eligibility of the Bidder is required
to be considered as on the date of issuance of NIT i.e. 25.09.2024
and till that date, the petitioner was not aware of the blacklisting
order being passed against it and therefore, no fault can be
attributed to the petitioner. He also submitted, while relying upon
Rule 39 (3) of the Rajasthan Transparancy in Public Procurement
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (15 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
Rules, 2013 (hereinafter as 'RTPP Rules'), that the blacklisting
order passed by Agriculture Jodhpur, University would not debar
the petitioner from participating in the NIT as Rule 39 (3) clearly
stipulates that a bidder would be ineligible for participating in any
procurement process undertaken by any procuring entity if
debarred by the State Government or in any procurement process
undertaken by a procuring entity if it has been debarred by such
procuring entity, however, in the instant case the petitioner was
neither debarred by the State Government nor by the procuring
entity which has issued the NIT in the present case, thus, the
petitioner was eligible to participate in the procurement process
initiated vide NIT (Annex.A/2). He also submitted, while drawing
attention of this court towards the blacklisting order passed by the
Agricultural University, Jodhpur that the said blacklisting order
specifically states that the petitioner would be ineligible to
participate only in any future tender process issued by the
Agricultural University and its subsidiaries, thus, the said
blacklisting order is of no consequences in the instant case as the
procuring entity is different.
17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
appeal was filed by the M/s Technosys Systems only qua two
items of the NIT i.e., Item 1 and 6 however, the procuring
authority while deciding the matter has went on to revise its own
earlier decision whereby the petitioner was held responsive and
held the petitioner non-responsive in item nos.2, 3 as well along
with item nos.1 and 6 and cancelled the NIT qua Item No.4 and
11, which amounts to reviewing its own decision and the same is
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (16 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
not permissible as the RTPP Act or the RTPP Rules does not
provide for the power of review to the procuring authority.
18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon following judgments; Assistant
Commissioner (CT) LTU & Ors. v. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. :
(2009) 11 SCR 953, Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : (1985) 4 SCC 404, Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite &
Company Ltd. & Ors. : (2002) 2 SCC 290, Amar Singh & Ors. v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. : AIR 1995 Raj. 151, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. : (2014) 9
SCC 263, Manoharlal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : (2012) 13
SCC 14, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa : (2011) 1 SCC 158,
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain & Ors. : (1975) 2 SCC 159,
Chhagni Ram Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2017 (2) WLN
43 (Raj.), Sitements Eng. & Manfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of
India : AIR 1976 SC 1785, Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor :
(1973) 2 SCC 836, Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji : (1971) 3 SCC 844, Tarachand v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. : MANU/RH/1047/1993, S.D.G.
Pandarasannidi v. State of Madras : AIR 1965 SC 1578 and
Kanishk Sinha & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. :
MANU/SC/0271/2025.
SUBMISSION BY LEARNED AG:
19. Per contra, learned Advocate General ('AG') appearing on
behalf of the respondent State submitted that though various
preliminary objections have been raised in the reply, however, he
does not want to press the preliminary objection raised with
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (17 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
respect to availability of statutory remedy of filing appeal to the
petitioner under Section 38 (4) of the Act of 2012 and therefore,
the matter may be decided on merits.
20. Learned AG while justifying the order impugned submitted
that the order impugned dated 29.01.2025 has been passed after
affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore,
there was strict compliance of principles of natural justice.
21. Learned AG submitted that the RTPP Act has been enacted
for ensuring transparency in the public procurement process,
hence, the same is an administrative process and not a quasi-
judicial function, hence the procuring entity can revise/review its
own administrative decisions at any time.
22. Learned AG further submitted that as per Section 7 of the
RTPP Act the procuring authority may prescribe additional criteria
in the tender document and in the present case the procuring
entity has prescribed a criterion at Point No.4 of Pre-qualification/
Eligibility Criteria, stipulating that the bidder must submit a
declaration to the effect that it has not been debarred/blacklisted
either by any bid inviting authority or by any organization
functional under Central/State Government and this information
ought to be current as on the date of publication of bid. He also
submitted that criterion prescribed at point no.4 is in addition to
the qualification criteria as provided under Rule 39 of the RTPP
Rules and not in derogation of the same. He also submitted that
the petitioner has not challenged the criterion prescribed at Point
no.4 of the bid document in the instant writ petitions. He thus,
submitted while relying on criterion prescribed at Point No.4 of the
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (18 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria of Bid document that as on
the date of publication of NIT i.e. on 25.09.2024, the petitioner
stood debarred/blacklisted vide order dated 17.01.2023 for a
period of three years, however, the petitioner submitted false
affidavit and declaration at the time of submitting the bids while
concealing such blacklisting order, therefore, the petitioner was
rightly held non-responsive.
23. Learned AG, while drawing attention of the Court towards the
declaration and affidavit submitted in form of Annexure P & Q
respectively along with the respective bids, submitted that the
petitioner has given false information that it is not under
investigation /charged/ prosecuted/ debarred/ blacklisted/
declared having dissatisfactory performance by any State or
Central Government/Semi-Government Organization/autonomous
body/ PSUs of Central/State Government/quasi Government
authority in India for supply of materials out operations and
maintenance work. He further submitted that even though the
blacklisting order was stayed on 21.10.2024, the petitioner was
otherwise required to disclose the said fact in the declaration and
affidavit filed along with the Bid document (Annex.P & Q),
however, the petitioner has deliberately not submitted the said
information and it was only when clarification was sought from the
petitioner, the petitioner for the first time apprised the
respondents about passing of interim order staying the effect and
operation of blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023. He also
submitted that the interim order dated 21.10.2024 would not wipe
out the blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 as the petitioner stood
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (19 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
disqualified as on the date of publication of the NIT. He also
submitted that Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules provides that the
procuring entity shall disqualify a bidder if it finds at any time that
the information submitted, concerning the qualification of the
bidder either constituted a misrepresentation or was materially
inaccurate or incomplete, hence, the authorities have rightly
disqualified the petitioner as it has submitted false declaration.
24. Learned AG also submitted that S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025
and 370/2025 have become infructuous as the NIT in respect to
work in question i.e., Item Nos.4 and 11, have already been
cancelled and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in this regard does not have any force.
SUBMISSIONS BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT-M/s TECHNOSYS
SYSTEMS:
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Private
respondent- M/s Technosys Systems in S.B.C.W.P.Nos.3497/2025
and 3502/2025 submitted that the petitioner has approached this
court without exhausting the statutory remedy of filing appeal,
therefore, the writ petitions are not even maintainable. He further
submitted, while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India : (1994) 6
SCC 651, that a writ court should not interfere in the contractual
matters concerning Government contracts. He further submitted
that the petitioner produced false affidavit, oath certificate and
has concealed material facts from the procuring entity and the
said fact was admitted by the petitioner itself before the second
appellate authority.
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (20 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
26. Learned counsel for the private respondent-M/s Technosys
Systems further submitted, while relying upon Sections 7 (d) and
25 of the RTPP Act and Rule 38 (1) of the RTPP Rules, that the
petitioner was rightly disqualified by the respondent authorities as
it stood blacklisted as on the date of publication of NIT. He also
submitted that the writ petitions- S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025 and
3502/2025 have been filed after issuance of work order in favour
of respondent No.4 (M/s Technosys Systems), and the respondent
No.4 has already proceeded with execution of work and letter of
intent has also been issued in its favour.
27. Learned counsel for the private respondent- M/s Technosys
Systems further submitted that the effect of interim order dated
21.10.2024 passed in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner
is prospective in nature and the same cannot be said to be having
retrospective effect for the interregnum period i.e. from
17.01.2023 to 21.10.2024 and, therefore, the procuring entity has
rightly held petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive. He further
submitted that the petitioner having participated in the tender
process cannot be permitted to question any of the criteria of the
Bid by way of filing the writ petition. In support of arguments, he
has relied upon following case laws: Maa Binda Express Carrier &
Anr. v. Northeast Frontier Railway & ors. : 2014 (1) WLC (SC) Civil
146, Abeinsa Infraestrcuturas Medio Ambienete, S.A. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : 2016 (1) WLC (Raj.) 735, Tata Cellurlar v.
Union of India : (1994) 6 SCC 651, Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa & Ors. : (2007) 14 SCC 517, National High Speed rail
Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd. & Ors. : AIR 2022 SC 866,
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (21 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. :
2015 2 Supreme 423 and M/s Ind-Swift Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
& Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2254/2012 decided on
21.02.2012 at Jaipur Bench.
SUBMISSIONS BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT-M/s PURI
SCIENTIFIC WORKS:
28. Learned counsel for private respondent-M/s Puri Scientific
Works in S.B.CWP No.369/2025 submitted that the same is not
maintainable considering the narrow scope of judicial review in
contractual matters. He also submitted that the petitioner having
stood blacklisted/debarred vide order dated 17.01.2023 was not
eligible to participate in the NIT in view of
pre-qualification/eligibility criteria mentioned at Point no.4. He
also submitted that the petitioner has furnished false information
in affidavit/declaration and the same was a ground for
disqualification as per Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules, hence, the
petitioner has rightly been held ineligible. He placed reliance on:
Tata Motors Ltd. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (BEST) & Ors. : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
29. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for
the parties and have perused the material available on record and
the judgments cited at bar. After taking into account the
submission made by the learned Advocate General that he does
not wish to press on the issue of alternative remedy and that
matters may finally be decided on merits, this court deems it
appropriate to finally decide the instant writ petitions on merit.
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (22 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
30. The controversy in the instant writ petitions centers around
the decision of the respondent authorities in holding the
petitioner's technical bid non-responsive on the ground that the
petitioner failed to furnish correct information in the declaration
regarding the blacklisting/debarment, which was required to be
submitted as per criterion mentioned at Point No.4 of the Pre-
Qualification/Eligibility Criteria and the submission of false
affidavit regarding the information furnished in the bidding
document, which was required to be submitted as per criterion
prescribed at Point No.5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria.
31. This court finds that the petitioner has challenged the
impugned orders, wherein the petitioner has been disqualified and
its technical bid has been held to be non-responsive for
submission of incorrect information in affidavit/declaration, while
concealing the blacklisting/debarment order dated 17.01.2023
passed by Agriculture University, Jodhpur against it, information in
respect of which was required to be furnished along with the bid
document as per the criterion prescribed at Point Nos.4 of the Pre-
Qualification/Eligibility Criteria.
32. As per the E-Bid Information No.1/2024-25 dated
25.09.2024 (Annex.A/2), the cut-off date for submission of bid
was 21.10.2024. And, as per Point No.4 of the Pre-Bid
Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, the bidder was required to submit
a declaration to the effect that it has not been
debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any
organization functional under central/State Government and such
declaration ought to be current as on the date of publication of the
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (23 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
bid, which in the present case is 25.09.2024. The said criterion at
Point No.4 is reproduced as under:
"The bidder must have to submit a Declaration for not
having been debarred/blacklisted either by the any Bid
Inviting Authority or by any organization functional under
Central/State government. The bid will be rejected
without this document. This statement ought to be
current as of the date the bid was published"
33. Further, as per Point no.5 of the Pre-Bid
Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, a bidder was required to furnish an
affidavit to the effect that correct information has been submitted
by the bidder in the bid and he shall be solely responsible for
furnishing wrong/false information in the bid. The said criterion at
Point No.5 is reproduced as under:
"The bidder shall furnish an affidavit to the effect that the
correct information has been furnished in the Bid and the
bidder shall be solely responsible for furnishing
wrong/false information in the bid. The bid will be
rejected without this document."
34. It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 17.01.2023
(Annex.A/6) the petitioner stood debarred/blacklisted for a period
of three years. The petitioner submitted Bid document on
21.10.2024 along with declaration and affidavit (Annex.P & Q of
the Bid document) while stating that the petitioner is not under
investigation/charged/prosecuted/debarred/blacklisted/ declared
having dissatisfactory performance by any state or Central
Government/Semi Govt. organization/autonomous body/PSUs of
central/State Government/quasi government authority in India for
supply of materials out operations and maintenance work. The
relevant portion of the declaration (Annex.A/5) is reproduced as
under: -
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (24 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
"With reference to above mention subject, we
hereby declare that Multitech Automation 560-B, 8th C
Road Sardarpura Jodhpur 342003 Rajasthan (Name of
firm) is not under investigation/charged/prosecuted/
debarred/blacklisted/declared having dissatisfactory
performance by any state or central government/semi
Govt. organization/autonomous boy/PSUs of
central/State Government/quasi government authority in
India for supply of materials out operations and
maintenance work."
35. Further, the relevant portion of the affidavit (Annex.A/4)
which was submitted by the petitioner in compliance of criterion
prescribed at Point No.5 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility
Criteria, is extracted as under:
"With reference to above mention subject: We hereby
declare that. Multitech Automation 560-B, 8th C Road
Sardarpura Jodhpur 342003 Rajasthan (Name of Firm)
our company has furnished the correct information in the
tender and we solely responsible for furnishing
wrong/false information In the bid."
36. Thus, as per the contents of the declaration and affidavit, it
is projected that as on the date of notarizing the said affidavit and
declaration dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner firm was not
debarred/blacklisted, whereas the fact is that as on the date of
publication of the NIT i.e., 25.09.2024, the petitioner stood
blacklisted/debarred vide order dated 17.01.2023 and hence, the
petitioner was required to furnish the correct information in the
declaration as prescribed at Point No.4 of the
Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria. It is also important to note
that the petitioner did not furnish the copy of interim order dated
21.10.2024 to the respondent authorities while submitting the bid
document and the same was only supplied by the petitioner for
the first time on 24.11.2024 in pursuance of clarification dated
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (25 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
20.11.2024 (Annex.10) sought by the respondent authority.
Further, the petitioner has justified the information furnished in
the declaration and affidavit to be correct mainly on the basis of
the contention that vide the interim order dated 21.10.2024 the
effect and operation of the blacklisting order was stayed, and
since the said interim order would be applicable retrospectively
and would wipe out the earlier blacklisting/debarment order
hence, as the declaration and affidavit were submitted along with
the bid document subsequent to passing of this interim order, the
information submitted therein was correct. This contention of the
petitioner is not sustainable as the effect of the interim order will
come into existence as on the date of passing of interim order and
shall not have any retrospective effect unless otherwise expressed
in the order itself, which is not the case here. Further, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that date of
submission of affidavit is relevant and not the date on which it was
notarized, is not sustainable as criterion prescribed at Point No.4
specifically stipulated that the statement submitted in the
declaration ought to be current as on the date of publication of bid
i.e., 25.09.2024, and on the date of notarizing as well as on the
date of submission of the declaration and affidavit, the petitioner
was well aware that it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of
publication of the NIT i.e., 25.09.2024, however, despite that the
petitioner chose to submit affidavit and declaration dated
19.10.2024 while projecting that it was neither
blacklisted/debarred as on the date of publication of NIT i.e.,
25.05.2024. It is also important to note that vide interim order
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (26 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
dated 21.10.2024, the effect and operation of the order dated
17.01.2023 was stayed only qua the blacklisting and not qua the
debarment, thus, the petitioner clearly stood debarred even
otherwise. The relevant portions of blacklisting order dated
17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6) as well as interim order dated
21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) are reproduced as under:
17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6):
"अतः कान्ट्र े ट/बोली की शर्तों के अनुसार बतौर शास्ति फर्म द्वारा जमा
Secuurity Deposit राशि रूपये 33950/- को जब्त (Forefeit) की
जाती है एवं राजस्थान लोक उपापन में पारदर्शिता अधिनियम 2012 की धरा
46 (4) के अन्तर्गत फर्म मैसर्स मल्टी टे क ओटोमेशन 560 बी, सी रोड़
सरदारपुरा जोधपुर राजस्थान एवं सहबद्ध फर्मों को इस विश्वविद्यालय एवं
अधीनस्थ इकाईयों द्वारा की जाने वाली उपापन प्रक्रिया में भाग लेने के लिए 3
वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए विवर्जित (Debar & Black Listed) घोषित
किया जाता है ।"
21.10.2024(Annex.A/9):
"Meanwhile, effect and operation of the impugned order
dated 17.01.2023 to the extent it relates to blacklisting of
the petitioner shall remain stayed."
36.1. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that
the blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 was of no consequences in
the NIT in question as the petitioner became ineligible to
participate only in any future tender process issued by the
Agricultural University and its subsidiaries, is not sustainable for
the reason that as per the criterion prescribed at point no.4 of the
Pre-qualification/Eligibility criteria petitioner was required to
submit a declaration to the effect that it has not been
debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any
organization functional under central/State Government. Further,
it is important to note that the petitioner was disqualified while
concluding that it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of the
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (27 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
publication of bid on account of furnishing incorrect information in
declaration and the affidavit.
37. The counsel for the petitioner has raised yet another
contention that the petitioner cannot be disqualified from
participating in the instant NIT as Rule 39 (3) of the Rules of 2013
puts embargo only upon participation in any procurement process
undertaken by any procuring entity if debarred by the State
Government or by the bid inviting authority itself and inasmuch as
the blacklisting order in the instant case was passed by a different
procuring entity which is not State Government. Before, dealing
with this contention, this court finds it appropriate to refer to
Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rules 38 and 39 (3) of the
RTPP Rules. Section 7 of the RTPP Act is reproduced as under:
"7. Qualifications of bidders.- (1) A procuring
entity may determine and apply one or more of the
requirements specified in sub-section (2) for a bidder to
be qualified for participating in a procurement process.
(2) Any bidder participating in the procurement
process shall-
(a) possess the necessary professional, technical,
financial and managerial resources and competence
required by the bidding documents, pre-qualification
documents or bidder registration documents, as the case
may be, issued by the procuring entity;
(b) have fulfilled his obligation to pay such of the
taxes payable to the Central Government or the State
Government or any local authority as may be specified in
the bidding documents, pre-qualification documents or
bidder registration documents;
(c) not be insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or
being wound up, not have its affairs administered by a
court or a judicial officer, not have its business activities
suspended and must not be the subject of legal
proceedings for any of the foregoing reasons;
(d) not have, and their directors and officers not
have, been convicted of any criminal offence related to
their professional conduct or the making of false
statements or misrepresentations as to their
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (28 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
qualifications to enter into a procurement contract within
a period of three years preceding the commencement of
the procurement process, or not have been otherwise
disqualified pursuant to debarment proceedings;
(e) not have a conflict of interest as may be
prescribed and specified in the pre-qualification
documents, bidder registration documents or bidding
documents, which materially affects fair competition;
(f) fulfil any other qualifications as may be
prescribed.
(3) Subject to the right of bidders to protect their
intellectual property or trade secrets the procuring entity
may require a bidder to provide any such information or
declaration as it considers necessary to make an
evaluation in accordance with sub-section (1).
(4) Any requirement established pursuant to this
section shall be set out in the pre-qualification documents
or bidder registration documents, if any, and in the
bidding documents and shall apply equally to all bidders.
(5) The procuring entity shall evaluate the
qualifications of bidders only in accordance with the
requirement specified in this section."
Thus, it is evident from the perusal of Section 7 (1) that the
procuring entity may determine and apply one or more of the
requirements specified in Section 7 (2) for a bidder to be qualified
for participating in a procurement process. Section 7 (2)(d) in
unambiguous terms stipulates that the bidder participating in the
procurement process shall not have been disqualified pursuant to
debarment proceedings. Further, Section 7 (2) (f) of the RTPP Act
clearly stipulates that the bidder shall fulfill any other
qualifications as may be prescribed. Further, Section 7 (4)
provides that any requirement established pursuant to Section 7
shall be set out in the pre-qualification documents/bidder
registration documents, if any, and in the bidding documents and
shall apply to all bidders equally.
37.1. Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules is reproduced as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (29 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
"38. Qualification of bidders.- In addition to the
provisions regarding qualification of bidders as set out in
section 7,-
(a) the procuring entity shall disqualify a bidder if it finds
at any time that,-
(i) the information submitted, concerning the
qualifications of the bidder, was false or constituted a
misrepresentation; or
(ii) the information submitted, concerning the
qualifications of the bidder, was materially inaccurate or
incomplete; and
(b) the procuring entity may require a bidder, who was
pre-qualified, to demonstrate its qualifications again in
accordance with the same criteria used to prequalify such
bidder. The procuring entity shall disqualify any bidder
that fails to demonstrate its qualifications again, if
requested to do so. The procuring entity shall promptly
notify each bidder requested to demonstrate its
qualifications again as to whether or not the bidder has
done so to the satisfaction of the procuring entity."
Thus, conjoint reading of Section 7 (2)(f) and Rule 38 makes it
evident that, this rule has been made for prescribing additional
qualification for bidders apart from the requirements already set
out in Section 7 (2). Rule 38 (a), thus, empowers the procuring
entity to disqualify a bidder at any time if it finds that the
information submitted by such bidder regarding its qualification
was false or constituted misrepresentation or if such information
was materially inaccurate or incomplete.
37.2. In the present case the respondent authority, as per
the mandate of Section 7 (4), has prescribed the criteria at Point
Nos.4 and 5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, which are
in consonance with Section 7(2)(d) of the RTPP Act and Rule 38 of
the RTPP Rules, and as per these criteria the bidders were
required to submit a declaration for not having been
debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (30 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
organization functional under the Central/State Government as on
the date of publication of NIT i.e., 25.09.2024 and were also
required to submit the affidavit to the effect that the information
furnished in the bid is correct and the bidder shall be solely
responsible for furnishing wrong/false information.
37.3. This court also takes into consideration Rule 39 of the
RTPP Rules and the same is reproduced as under:
"39. Eligibility of bidders.- (1) A bidder may be a
natural person, private entity, government owned entity
or, where permitted in the bidding documents, any
combination of them with a formal intent to enter into an
agreement or under an existing agreement in the form of
a Joint Venture. In the case of a Joint Venture: -
(a) all parties to the Joint Venture shall sign the bid and
they shall be jointly and severally liable; and
(b) a Joint Venture shall nominate a representative who
shall have the authority to conduct all business for and on
behalf of any or all the parties of the Joint Venture during
the bidding process. In the event the bid of Joint Venture
is accepted, either they shall form a registered Joint
Venture company/firm or otherwise all the parties to Joint
Venture shall sign the Agreement.
(2) A bidder should not have a conflict of interest in the
procurement in question as stated in rule 81 and the
bidding documents. The procuring entity shall take
appropriate actions against the bidder in accordance with
section 11 and Chapter IV of the Act, if it determines that
a conflict of interest has flawed the integrity of any
procurement process. All bidders found to have a conflict
of interest shall be disqualified.
(3) A bidder debarred under section 46 shall not be
eligible to participate in any procurement process
undertaken by,-
(a) any procuring entity, if debarred by the State
Government; and
(b) a procuring entity if debarred by such procuring
entity.
(4) In case of procurement of goods, bidder must be a
manufacturer, distributor or bona-fide dealer in the goods
and it shall furnish necessary proof for the same in the
specified format. Where applicable, proof of authorisation
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (31 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
by the manufacturer or country distributor in India, shall
be enclosed."
Thus, the bare perusal of Rule 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules makes it
evident that the said rule provides that a bidder shall not be
eligible to participate in procurement process in certain
circumstances as mentioned thereunder. Further, conjoint reading
of Section 7 (2) of the RTPP Act, Rules 38 and 39 (3) of the RTPP
Rules makes it evident that Rule 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules could
not be construed in the manner that it puts restriction on the
discretion of the procuring entity from prescribing any other
qualification criteria which it has been expressly empowered under
Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in this regard is not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner
was required to fulfill the criteria as prescribed at Point Nos.4 and
5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, and having failed to
fulfill the said criteria, the respondent authorities were justified
and having a right to disqualify the petitioner. It is also important
to note here that the petitioner has not challenged the criterion
prescribed at Point No.4 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria
or for that matter any other criteria prescribed thereunder and
was well aware of such criteria at the time of participating in the
procurement process.
38. As far as the contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent authority's action in revising its own
earlier decision amounts to review of its own orders and the RTPP
Act or the RTPP Rules do not provide for the power of review, is
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (32 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
concerned this court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 25 of
the RTPP Act. Section 25 of the RTPP Act is reproduced as under:
"25. Exclusion of bids.- (1) A procuring entity shall
exclude a bid if-
(a) the bidder is not qualified in terms of section 7;
(b) the bid materially departs from the requirements
specified in the bidding documents or it contains false
information;
(c) the bidder submitting the bid, his agent or any
one acting on his behalf, gave or agreed to give, to any
officer or employee of the procuring entity or other
governmental authority a gratification in any form, or any
other thing of value, so as to unduly influence the
procurement process;
(d) a bidder, in the opinion of the procuring entity,
has a conflict of interest materially affecting fair
competition.
(2) A bid shall be excluded as soon as the cause for its
exclusion is discovered.
(3) Every decision of a procuring entity to exclude a bid
shall be for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(4) Every decision of the procuring entity under sub-
section (3) shall be -
(a) communicated to the concerned bidder in
writing;
(b) published on the State Public Procurement
Portal."
Thus, bare perusal of Section 25 (1) (a) and (b) makes it evident
that a procuring entity is empowered to exclude a bid if the bidder
is not qualified in terms of Section 7 or if the bid materially
departs from the requirement specified in the bidding documents
or contains false information and in the present case the petitioner
has apparently given false declaration/information by way of
affidavit and declaration. Further, Section 25 (2) stipulates that a
bid shall be excluded as soon as the cause for its exclusion is
discovered. Sections 25 (3) provides that the reasons for
exclusion of bid shall be recorded in writing and Section 25 (4)
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (33 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
provides that every decision made under Section 25 (3) shall be
communicated to the bidder in writing and shall be published on
the State Public Procurement Portal.
38.1. In the present case initially the petitioner was held
responsive on 29.10.2024 qua Item Nos.1,2,3,4,6, and 11 after
seeking due clarification from the petitioner regarding the
blacklisting/debarment order dated 17.01.2023. However,
pursuant to the decision of first appellate authority (Director) in an
appeal filed by M/s Technosys Systems qua Item No.1 and 6, the
respondent authority revised its own earlier decision and held the
petitioner non-responsive qua Item Nos.2 and 3 too along with
item nos. 1 and 6 and cancelled the NIT qua Item No.4 and 11. As
already have been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment,
the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down vide Point Nos.4
and 5 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria (Which are in
consonance with Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rule 38 of
the RTPP Rules), and therefore, after coming to know of the cause
of exclusion, the respondent authority was justified in excluding
the bid of the petitioner qua Item Nos.2 and 3 as well. Therefore,
the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this
regard is not sustainable.
39. This court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and
370/2025 finds that the same pertain to Item Nos.4 and 11
respectively, and the NIT qua both these Items have already been
cancelled by the respondent authority. Thus, by virtue of the same
both these writ petitions have become infructuous. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that these writ
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (34 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
petitions have become infructuous only for the purpose of award
of work order however would still survive in respect to the
petitioner being disqualified and also in respect to cancellation of
the tender process, which has been done without giving any
reason as mandated under Section 26 of the RTPP Act. This court
finds that Section 26 of the RTPP Act stipulates that a procuring
entity may cancel the procurement process any time before the
acceptance of successful bid for reasons to be recorded in writing.
In the present case, the respondent authority has cancelled the
NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 due to technical and unavoidable
reasons and though, the reasons may not appear to be cogent but
in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afcons
Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
and Ors. (15.09.2016 - SC) : MANU/SC/1003/2016, unless
such decisions meet threshold of mala fide, intention to favour
someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity, the
constitutional court are to restrain from interfering with the such
decisions. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are
reproduced as under:
"13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the
decision making process or the decision of the
administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional
Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention
to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or
perversity must be met before the constitutional Court
interferes with the decision making process or the
decision.
14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this
Court has stated right from the time when Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979) 3 SCC 489 was
decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words
used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (35 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
treated as redundant or superfluous-they must be given
meaning and their necessary significance. In this context,
the use of the word 'metro' in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III
of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary
parlance cannot be overlooked.
15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a
project, having authored the tender documents, is the
best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding
and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is
mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the
tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or
employer of a project may give an interpretation to the
tender documents that is not acceptable to the
constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for
interfering with the interpretation given.
16. In the present appeals, although there does not
appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the
interpretation given by NMRCL to the tender conditions,
we are of the view that even if there was such an
ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to have
refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had
come to a clear conclusion that the interpretation given
by NMRCL was perverse or mala fide or intended to
favour one of the bidders. This was certainly not the case
either before the High Court or before this Court."
Thus, mere disagreement with the decision making process or the
decision of the administrative authority should not be a reason for
a constitutional court to interfere in the tender process. And the
threshold of malafides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the
constitutional court interferes with the decision making process.
In the present case the petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate before this court that such decision of cancellation
was made with malafide or with intention to favour someone.
Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (36 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
this regard is not sustainable. Even otherwise, the contention
raised by the petitioner in this respect is not sustainable for
another reason that the NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 itself have
been cancelled, thus, no purpose whatsoever survives in respect
to these Items of the NIT.
40. As far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-
application of mind and violation of principle of natural justice by
the respondent authority while passing of the impugned order
dated 29.01.2025, is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner in
the pleadings has specifically mentioned that it appeared before
the first appellate authority (Commissioner) and submitted a
detailed written submission and thereafter, the respondent
authority after application of mind and on the basis of material
available before it has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner
has not produced any new document/evidence to make him
eligible and it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of
publication of bid i.e., 25.09.2024 as per the criterion mentioned
at Point No.4 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria. The
relevant part of the order dated 29.01.2025 is reproduced as
under:
"All the parties were heard at length, the documents
submitted by them and the reply submitted by opposite
parties, RTPP, Act 2012 and RTPP Rule, 2013 were
carefully examined.
The firm has not produced any new
document/evidence to the appellate authority which
make him eligible for the procurement process. By
perusal of the document presented before the authority,
it is evident that the firm was blacklisted/debarred on the
date of publication of the bid i.e.26-09-2024 [Sic] as per
prequalification/eligibility criteria mentioned on Sr No.4 of
page 08 of the bid document issued by the department
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (37 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
i.e. procurement entity, which was mandatory condition
for all the bidders. The procurement entity is free to take
appropriate action against the defaulter firm as per the
provisions of RTPP Act 2012 and other relevant acts and
rules.
The grounds stated by M/s Multitech Automation,
Jodhpur are devoid of merit hence no action is warranted
in favour of M/s Multitech Automation, Jodhpur.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
The copy of decision should be given to concern parties
free of cost.
The decision is issued today Dated 29/01/2025"
Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this
regard is not tenable as the order is a well reasoned order and has
been passed after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity of
hearing. Further, the contention raised by counsel of the petitioner
that first appellate authority (Commissioner) has erred in
disposing of the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner
has been unable to establish its case whereas the appeal was filed
by M/s Technosys Systems and obligation was upon it to establish
its case, is not sustainable as even if the appeal was filed by M/s
Technosys Systems, it was upon the petitioner to establish that it
(petitioner) has not furnished incorrect information in the
declaration and affidavit.
41. Furthermore, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos.
3497/2025, 3502/2025 and 6362/2025 (Item nos.6, 1 and 2 of
the NIT respectively) finds that the petitioner has also challenged
the respective revised technical evaluation reports dated
05.12.2024/06.12.2024. However, it is seen from the perusal of
these respective reports that they have been issued in compliance
of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) passed by the first
appellate authority (Director), which has already been quashed
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (38 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
and set aside qua Item Nos.6, 1 and 2 vide order dated
21.01.2025 (Annex.A/15) passed by a coordinate bench of this
court in S.B.C.W.P. Nos.350/2025, 326/2025 and 365/2025.
Therefore, in such circumstances no adjudication is required as far
as prayer for quashing and setting aside of the technical
evaluation reports dated 05.12.2024/06.12.2024 is concerned.
And for same reason the prayer made by the petitioner in
S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025 with respect to quashing and setting
aside of corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 is not required to be
adjudicated.
42. This court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 (Item
no.3 of the NIT) finds that the petitioner has challenged the
corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 and the revised technical
evaluation report dated 06.12.2024. However, it is seen that the
revised technical evaluation report dated 06.12.2024 has been
issued in compliance of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15),
which has not been challenged by the petitioner before this court.
Thus, in such circumstances it has rendered the prayer qua the
quashing and setting aside of corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 as
well as revised technical report dated 06.12.2024 otiose and any
relief, if granted, would become ineffectual.
43. Thus, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 3497/2025,
3502/2025 and 6362/2025 (Item nos.6, 1 and 2 of the NIT
respectively) finds that the petitioner firm has failed to disclose
correct information in the declaration and affidavit at the time of
submitting the bid and has concealed the blacklisting/debarment
order dated 07.01.2023, which was required to be disclosed as per
[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (39 of 39) [CW-3497/2025]
connected matters]
[2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]
criteria prescribed at Point Nos.4 and 5 of the
Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria of the NIT (Applicable to all
bidders). Therefore, the respondent authority upon coming to
know that the petitioner has failed to comply with criteria at Point
Nos.4 and 5, was well within its right to disqualify the petitioner
while concluding that the petitioner stood debarred/blacklisted as
on the date of publication of NIT i.e., 25.09.2024.
43.1. Further, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P.
No.369/2025 (Item no.3 of the NIT) finds that the prayer made
therein has become otiose as petitioner has failed to challenge the
order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15).
43.2. Further, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P.
Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025 (Item nos.4 and 11 of the NIT
respectively) finds that the same have become infructuous as the
NIT in respect to Item Nos.4 and 11 itself have been cancelled.
44. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing
paragraphs, the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and
are accordingly dismissed.
45. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
Reserve-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
