Dismissed

M/S. Prabhu Dan Detha and Com., v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2015CW/7775/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of their technical bid in a public tender. The court held the rejection was not arbitrary and noted the tender process had been cancelled with fresh notices issued, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/S. Prabhu Dan Detha and Com., Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

M/S. PRABHU DAN DETHA & COMPANY VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.7775/14)

¶2

¶3

M/S. PRABHU DAN DETHA & COMPANY VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.7775/14)

¶4

Dated:- 11.2.15.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶6

Mr. Vineet Dave, for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Sharma, Deputy Government Counsel, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.G.Ojha, for the respondent no. 2 & 3. Mr.Suniel Purohitt, for the respondent no.4.

¶7

The matter comes up on second stay petition. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.

¶8

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the result of evaluation of Technical Bid in the tender process for works of Construction of Internal Road and Special Repair of Internal Road, Package 04 at the Sub-Yard Ramgarh initiated by the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to reconsider and accept the Technical Bid of the petitioner.

¶9

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the rejection of 'Potential Assessment Bid' of the petitioner by the Bid Evaluation Committee is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is submitted that the Technical Bid of the petitioner has been rejected giving an erroneous reason of 'document not submitted', whereas, the

¶10

M/S. PRABHU DAN DETHA & COMPANY VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.7775/14)

¶11

¶12

petitioner had furnished all the requisite details as per the special conditions of the contract for Potential Assessment of the Contractors. It is stated that the private respondent who is having much lower annual turn over than the petitioner and has executed only one civil work in the last five years in contrast to as many as 19 civil works executed by the petitioner in the last 7 years, his Technical Bid has been accepted and thus, the action of the respondent is highly unreasonable so as to violative of Article 14 & 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶13

A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 & 3 taking the stand that the petitioner's bid was rejected after evaluation in accordance with the tender conditions. It is submitted that as per the tender conditions, the petitioner was required to submit information regarding the work executed in the last five years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 in Schedule II A, B, & C for Road, Bridges & Building works, whereas, it has submitted the documents regarding the works executed during the years 2006-07, 200708, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and therefore, decision of Bid Evaluation Committee in rejecting the Technical Bid of the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. That apart, it is submitted that the bid offered by the private

¶14

M/S. PRABHU DAN DETHA & COMPANY VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.7775/14)

¶15

¶16

respondent-M/s Jai Jwala Contracts was not accepted being higher than the prevailing rate and accordingly, the decision was taken to reject the bid and invite fresh tenders.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 & 3 submitted that after cancellation of the tender process, the NIT No.03/2014-15 dated 4.12.14 having been issued, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner has rendered infructuous. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bid offered by the petitioner having been rejected illegally, on account of cancellation of the tender process during the pendency of the petition, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be dismissed as having become infructuous. 7. It is to be noticed that the Technical Bid of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents for the reason that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite documents with the Assessment Bid. A perusal of the details of maximum value of civil engineering works executed by the petitioner in preceding 7 years placed on record reveals that the petitioner has furnished the details of the works executed during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, whereas, as per the tender conditions, the petitioner was required to furnish the information regarding works executed in last five years i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-

¶18

M/S. PRABHU DAN DETHA & COMPANY VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.7775/14)

¶19

¶20

12, 2012-13, 2013-14, in Schedule II A, B & C for Road, Bridges & Building works. Thus, as a matter of fact, the rejection of the Technical Bid of the petitioner by the Bid Evaluation Committee cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, admittedly, the tender process already stands cancelled and the fresh NIT has already been issued, which are not impugned in the present writ petition.

¶21

In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶24

aditya/

M/S. Prabhu Dan Detha and Com., v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Prabhu Dan Detha and Com., v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Paswan Vs Uco Bank

Raj Kumar Vs State Local Self and Ors.

Om Prakash Vs State and Ors.

Nand Kishor Vs State and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Chandra Vs Stat E and Ors.