Allowed

M/S Vardhman Trading Company v. Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2018CW/25606/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged its exclusion from empanelment for transporting agriculture produce, alleging the rejection was based solely on failing to submit a declaration on stamp paper. The court found no explicit requirement for stamp paper and allowed the writ.

What did the court decide?

The exclusion of the petitioner-firm for empanelment is declared bad; respondents directed to consider the bid submitted on 11th October 2018 without insisting on stamp paper; two weeks to comply.

M/S Vardhman Trading Company Vs Rajasthan… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 25606/2018

¶3

M/s Vardhman Trading Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Raj Kumar Jain S/o Tarachand Jain Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Dei, Tehsil Nainwa Distt. Bundi, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed), Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director.

¶7

Registrar Cooperative Societies, Cooperative Department, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶11

Order

¶12

27/11/2018

¶13

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 14^th November, 2018, wherein the respondents have not found the petitioner-firm eligible to be empanelled for the purpose of transport and handling of agriculture produce, as per terms of the advertisement.

¶14

The petitioner has further prayed that action of the respondents of not registering the petitioner-firm only on account of not filing declaration on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-, may be declared illegal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-firm has never been blacklisted and as such, as per the

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-25606/2018]

¶17

condition No. 7 of the advertisement, the required declaration was submitted.

¶18

Counsel submitted that Condition No. 7 in the advertisement

¶19

nowhere requires/provides that the bidder has to give the said declaration on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 100/-. Counsel submitted that Annexure B appended with the terms & conditions of the tender had only sought a declaration and it nowhere mentions that the same declaration has to be given on a nonjudicial stamp paper.

¶20

Counsel further submitted that when the respondents verbally informed the petitioner-firm for its non-consideration for the purpose of registration, on account of not submitting the declaration on a stamp paper, the petitioner-firm by abundant caution has submitted the declaration on a non-judicial paper of Rs. 100/- on 15^th October, 2018.

¶21

Counsel further submitted that petitioner-firm has wrongly been excluded by the respondents in arbitrary manner.

¶22

Counsel for the respondents-Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, submitted that it was the duty of the petitioner to submit a declaration that the firm was not blacklisted and the petitioner only submitted the declaration on a plain paper on 11^th October, 2018 and his submission of declaration on stamp paper of Rs. 100/- on 15^th October, 2018 is of no consequence.

¶23

Counsel submitted that at the time of filing the tender document, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit stating therein that the firm has never been blacklisted and the said affidavit was to be given on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/-.

¶24

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CW-25606/2018]

¶27

This Court finds that the condition No. 7 has only sought a declaration and it nowhere mentions that the said declaration was to be given on a stamp paper. This Court further finds that the respondents were very explicit while seeking affidavit on a nonjudicial stamp, as the same condition is imposed at the end of the model form where the applicant has to give declaration of certain information on a non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/-.

¶28

This Court finds that the Annexure B which has been annexed with the tender document also simply makes a reference of a declaration by the bidder and as such there has been no requirement of giving said declaration on a non judicial stamp paper.

¶29

This Court finds that the petitioner has through out been contending before the respondents that his firm was never blacklisted and accordingly a declaration was made and later on the required affidavit of declaration has also been filed.

¶30

This Court finds that exclusion of the petitioner-firm on the ground of not submitting the declaration on a non judicial stamp is not proper and the respondents ought to have considered the bid of the petitioner for the purpose of empanelment and rejecting the same on the ground of not furnishing the declaration on a nonjudicial stamp paper is not a proper exercise of power by the respondents.

¶31

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The exclusion of the petitioner-firm for the purpose of empanelment on account of not submitting the declaration on a non judicial stamp paper is declared bad. The respondents are directed to consider the bid of the petitioner-firm for the purpose of empanelment by not insisting for giving the required declaration

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-25606/2018]

¶34

on a non judicial stamp paper while submitting the bid on 11^th October, 2018. The required exercise be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶36

Monika/39

M/S Vardhman Trading Company v. Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vardhman Trading Company v. Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)

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

Sphere Softech Private Limited Vs State Bank of India

Kishan Lal Soni S/O Late Shri Navrang Lal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Shakambhari Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kamlesh Bala W/O Dr. Mukesh Kumar

Mukesh Verma S/O Narayan Lal Verma, B/C Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Santokba the Pharmacy Opd Vs License Authority and Asst. Drug Controller, Jaipur

M/S Ram Khiladi Gurjar Vs Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)