M/S Bhati Constructions vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 3425 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Bhati Constructions vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
            D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1590/2025

M/s Bhati Constructions, Having Its Registered Office At 378, J.n.
Vyas Colony, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer Raj, Through Its
Proprietor Nakhat Singh Bhati S/o Karan Singh,aged About 62
Years, Resident Of Naya Bas, Amar Sagar, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaisalmer
         Working As Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust
         Jaisalmer, Having Its Office At Collectorate Premises,tehsil
         And District Jaisalmer.
2.       Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer Working As Secretary,
         Urban Improvement Trust, Jaisalmer, Having Its Office At
         Collectorate Premises, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
3.       Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1589/2025
M/s Bhati Constructions, Having Its Registered Office At 378, J.n.
Vyas Colony, Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer (Raj),through Its
Proprietor Nakhat Singh Bhati S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 62
Years, Resident Of Naya Bas, Amar Sagar, Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Jaisalmer,
         Working As Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust,
         Jaisalmer, Having Its Office At Collectorate Premises,tehsil
         And District Jaisalmer.
2.       Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer Working As Secretary,
         Urban Improvement Trust, Jaisalmer, Having Its Office At
         Collectorate Premises, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer.
3.       Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department,
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Priyanshu Gopa
For Respondent(s)           :     Ms. Versha Paliwal
                                  Mr. Ankur Mathur




                        (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:50:01 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB]                  (2 of 13)                    [SAW-1590/2025]


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 20.01.2026

2. Date on which judgment was reserved 20.01.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 06.03.2026

Reportable Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. At the outset, it is clarified that D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No. 1589/2025 is being treated as the lead case, as both the

present appeals arise out of the same factual matrix, challenge

the same tender process and impugned order, and seek identical

reliefs. Accordingly, the facts are being taken from D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No. 1589/2025, and the decision rendered therein

shall govern the connected appeal i.e., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No. 1590/2025 as well.

2.The appellant has preferred the present Special Appeal praying

for the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Special Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18160/2025 -- M/s Bhati Construction Vs State of Rajasthan may kindly be quashed and set aside, and the writ petition may kindly be allowed in the terms as prayed therein.

Any other writ, order, or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be issued in favor of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

3. The present intra-court appeals arise out of the order dated

24.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 18191/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by

the appellant came to be dismissed.

3.1. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jaisalmer (hereinafter

referred to as "UIT") issued a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) No.

04/2025-26 (SL-2) dated 22.07.2025 for execution of renovation

and strengthening work of road from Ambedkar Chowk to GSS

Jodhpur Road, Jaisalmer. The appellant, a registered contractor,

participated in the tender process by submitting its bid along with

Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).

3.2. As per the conditions of the NIB, the EMD was required to be

furnished in the prescribed mode, namely through Demand Draft/

Banker's Cheque or other permissible modes specified under the

applicable procurement rules. The appellant submitted the EMD

initially in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) lien-marked

in favour of the UIT within the stipulated time. Subsequently, on

23.08.2025, prior to opening of the technical bid, the appellant

submitted a Demand Draft of the equivalent amount.

3.3. The respondent-authorities, however, rejected the appellant's

technical bid on the ground that the EMD had not been submitted

in the prescribed mode at the time of bid submission and thus did

not comply with the mandatory tender condition. The appellant

submitted a representation dated 23.08.2025, which came to be

rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 02.09.2025.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

3.4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 18191/2025 before this Hon'ble Court. The learned

Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition

vide order dated 24.09.2025, declining interference in the tender

process.

3.5. During the interregnum, the tender process culminated in

issuance of Letter of Acceptance dated 17.09.2025, followed by

issuance of work order dated 18.09.2025 in favour of the

successful bidder, and the work pursuant thereto is stated to be in

progress.

3.6. Being dissatisfied with dismissal of the writ petition, the

appellant has preferred the present Special Appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned

Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition in limine without

examining the factual and legal issues raised by the appellant,

despite the matter involving substantial questions relating to

fairness in public procurement and legality of administrative

action. It was submitted that the impugned order dated

24.09.2025 does not assign adequate reasons and therefore

suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order, contrary to

settled principles requiring judicial orders to disclose reasons.

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is a registered

contractor who had participated in the tender process pursuant to

NIB No. 04/2025-26 (SL-2) dated 22.07.2025 and had furnished

the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) within time through lien-marked

Fixed Deposit Receipts. It was further submitted that owing to

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

procedural delay in procuring a Demand Draft, the appellant

subsequently submitted a Demand Draft of the equivalent amount

on 23.08.2025, prior to opening of the technical bid, thereby

curing any alleged procedural irregularity.

4.2. It was submitted that rejection of the appellant's bid on the

ground of initial submission of EMD in the form of FDR instead of

Demand Draft/Banker's Cheque was hyper-technical and contrary

to the object of tender conditions, as the financial security of the

employer remained fully protected at all times. Learned counsel

submitted that substantive compliance having been achieved prior

to technical evaluation, disqualification of the appellant defeated

the very purpose of competitive procurement.

4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-

authorities adopted a discriminatory approach inasmuch as other

bidders, who allegedly violated the mandatory Finance

Department Circular dated 15.07.2025 requiring deposit of tender

fees through e-GRAS mode, were permitted to participate,

whereas the appellant alone was disqualified. Such selective

enforcement of tender conditions, it was submitted, amounted to

arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4.4. It was also submitted that the appellant's representation

dated 23.08.2025 was rejected through a mechanical and non-

speaking order dated 02.09.2025, despite directions of this

Hon'ble Court dated 27.08.2025 requiring consideration with

application of mind. According to learned counsel, the rejection

order failed to consider the appellant's explanations and

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

supporting material and was passed in violation of principles of

natural justice.

4.5. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant's financial bid

was substantially lower than the accepted bid and exclusion of the

appellant resulted in significant financial loss to public exchequer.

It was argued that public procurement must prioritize competition,

transparency, and value for public money as envisaged under

Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

Procurement Act, 2012.

4.6. It was further submitted that correction of the EMD mode

prior to opening of technical bids caused no prejudice to any

competing bidder, nor had any vested rights accrued at that stage.

Therefore, rejection of the bid was disproportionate and

unreasonable.

4.7. Learned counsel also submitted that ambiguity existed

between the bid documents and the NIB regarding permissible

modes of EMD submission, and in cases of ambiguity,

interpretation favouring broader participation ought to be adopted.

4.8. It was contended that the appellant had a legitimate

expectation that curable procedural defects would not result in

outright disqualification once compliance was achieved before

evaluation. The action of the respondents, according to the

appellant, amounted to a colorable exercise of power intended to

exclude the lowest bidder.

4.9. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that availability of an

alternative remedy under the RTPP Act would not bar exercise of

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

writ jurisdiction in the present case, particularly where allegations

of arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, and constitutional

infirmities were raised. It was thus prayed that the impugned

order of the learned Single Judge as well as the rejection of the

appellant's bid be set aside.

4.10. Learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance

upon the following precedents in support of his submissions:

1. Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors. [Appeal (Civil) 4613 of 2006 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24879 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2006]

2. Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 273

3. Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17383/2024 decided on 04.10.2024]

4. Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director of Mines and Geology, BBSR and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. ... of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6920 of 2023) decided on:

15.07.2024]

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted

that the rejection of the appellant's bid was strictly in accordance

with the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) as

well as the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

Procurement Act, 2012 and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

Procurement Rules, 2013, and therefore no interference was

warranted either by the learned Single Judge or by this Court in

intra-court appellate jurisdiction.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the NIB specifically mandated

submission of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the prescribed

mode, namely through Demand Draft/Banker's Cheque or other

permissible modes recognized under the applicable procurement

rules. The appellant admittedly failed to furnish the EMD in the

prescribed form at the time of submission of the bid and thus

committed a fundamental non-compliance with a mandatory

tender condition.

5.2. It was further submitted that Rule 42(6) of the Rajasthan

Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 clearly stipulates

the permissible modes for furnishing bid security, and compliance

with such requirement must exist at the time of bid submission

itself. A subsequent change or rectification after submission of bid

documents, it was argued, is impermissible in law and would

vitiate the sanctity of the tender process.

5.3. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant's contention

that submission of a Demand Draft on 23.08.2025 cured the

defect was misconceived, as tender conditions are required to be

complied with strictly at the time of submission of the bid and

cannot be retrospectively rectified. Acceptance of post-submission

compliance, according to the respondents, would amount to

altering the conditions of tender to favour a particular bidder.

5.4. It was further submitted that the appellant's bid was rejected

through a reasoned administrative decision after due consideration

of the representation dated 23.08.2025 in compliance with the

directions issued by this Hon'ble Court on 27.08.2025. The

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

competent authority examined the bid documents and recorded

that the appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory

condition relating to submission of EMD in prescribed mode.

5.5. Learned counsel submitted that allegations of discrimination

and unequal treatment were wholly unfounded. It was argued that

enforcement of the EMD condition against the appellant was

necessary to maintain discipline, transparency, and uniformity in

public procurement and did not amount to arbitrary action under

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5.6. It was also submitted that the tender process had already

culminated in issuance of Letter of Acceptance dated 17.09.2025

and work order dated 18.09.2025 in favour of the successful

bidder, pursuant to which execution of public work is presently in

progress. Any interference at this stage would disrupt an ongoing

public project and cause serious prejudice to public interest.

5.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the scope of judicial

review in contractual and tender matters is limited and courts

ordinarily do not interfere unless arbitrariness, mala fides, or

statutory violation is clearly established. In the present case, no

such infirmity was demonstrated by the appellant.

5.8. It was contended that the learned Single Judge, after

considering the submissions of the parties, rightly declined to

interfere with the administrative decision taken in accordance with

tender conditions and procurement rules, and therefore the

impugned order does not warrant interference in appeal.

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

5.9. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that all grounds raised by

the appellant were misconceived and contrary to the record, and

since the appellant admittedly failed to comply with a mandatory

condition of the NIB, the Special Appeals deserve dismissal with

costs.

5.10. Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance

upon the following precedents in support of his submissions:

1. Mr. B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors. [Appeal (Civil) 4613 of 2006 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24879 of 2005 decided on 31.10.2006]

2. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Anoj Kumar Garwala (2020) 17 SCC 577

3. Central Coalfield Limited & Anr. vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 622

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused

the material available on record.

6.1. This Court observes that the primary issue arising for

consideration is whether rejection of the appellant's bid on account

of non-submission of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) in the

prescribed mode at the time of bid submission warrants

interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and in the present intra-court appellate

jurisdiction.

6.2. This Court notes that the Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) expressly

required submission of EMD in the prescribed mode, namely

through Demand Draft/Banker's Cheque or other permissible

modes recognized under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

Procurement Rules, 2013. It is not disputed that at the time of

submission of the bid, the appellant furnished the EMD in the form

of lien-marked Fixed Deposit Receipts and not in the prescribed

mode.

6.3. This Court further observes that Rule 42(6) of the Rajasthan

Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 specifies the

permissible modes of furnishing bid security. Compliance with

eligibility and bid conditions is required to exist at the time of

submission of the bid itself, unless the tender conditions expressly

permit rectification.

6.4. The contention of the appellant that subsequent submission

of a Demand Draft prior to opening of the technical bid cured the

defect cannot be accepted. This Court finds that permitting post-

submission rectification of a mandatory tender condition would

amount to altering the level playing field amongst bidders and

would dilute certainty and discipline in public procurement.

6.5. This Court observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Central Coalfields Limited (Supra) has categorically held that

essential tender conditions must be complied with strictly and

courts should refrain from substituting administrative wisdom in

contractual matters. Similarly, in Vidarbha Irrigation

Development Corporation (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters.

6.6. This Court also takes note of the judgments relied upon by

the appellant, including Poddar Steel Corporation (Supra) and

B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. (Supra); however, those authorities

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

recognize relaxation only where the condition is ancillary or

directory in nature. In the present case, the requirement relating

to mode of submission of EMD forms part of the eligibility

framework ensuring financial seriousness and procedural

uniformity and therefore cannot be treated as a merely technical

or curable irregularity.

6.7. This Court further observes that allegations of discrimination

have not been substantiated by cogent material. The appellant has

failed to demonstrate that similarly situated bidders violating the

same mandatory condition were treated differently. Mere assertion

of unequal treatment, without demonstrable parity of

circumstances, cannot invalidate an otherwise lawful

administrative decision.

6.8. This Court notes that the representation submitted by the

appellant was considered by the competent authority pursuant to

directions of this Hon'ble Court and rejected by order dated

02.09.2025 assigning reasons relating to non-compliance with

mandatory tender conditions. Thus, the decision-making process

cannot be termed arbitrary or devoid of application of mind.

6.9. This Court further observes that judicial review in tender

matters is concerned with the decision-making process and not

the merits of the decision itself. Unless mala fides, arbitrariness,

or statutory violation is established, courts ought not to interfere

in commercial decisions taken by expert authorities.

6.10. A significant factual aspect which weighs with this Court is

that the tender process has already culminated in issuance of

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9474-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-1590/2025]

Letter of Acceptance dated 17.09.2025 and work order dated

18.09.2025, and the work pursuant thereto is stated to be in

progress. Interference at this stage would unsettle a concluded

contractual process and adversely affect execution of a public

infrastructure project.

6.11. This Court observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

consistently cautioned that courts must exercise restraint where

public projects have substantially progressed, as interference at a

belated stage may cause greater public injury than alleged private

prejudice.

6.12. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge rightly

declined to interfere in the tender process keeping in view the

limited scope of judicial review and absence of arbitrariness or

illegality in the decision of the respondent-authorities.

6.13. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the

considered opinion that no ground for interference is made out in

the present intra-court appeals.

7. Consequently, the present special appeals stand dismissed.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

SKant/-

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:55:54 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)