Dismissed

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant v. the Jodhpur Development Authority

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2021SAW/401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed an intra-court appeal arising from the single-judge dismissal of a writ petition. The lower court held that the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 regarding the forfeiture of earnest money.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed.

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant Vs… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[SAW-401/2020]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶4

AT JODHPUR

¶5

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 401/2020

¶6

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant, through its Representative Sh. Parveen Mathur S/o Champa Lal Mathur, aged 52 Yrs, R/o 291, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Jodhpur Development Authority through its Secretary, Jodhpur Development Authority Premises, Opposite Railway Hospital, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

¶10

The Executive Engineer (South Zone), Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

18/01/2021

¶16

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition preferred by the writ-petitioner aggrieved by order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the second respondent directing forfeiture of the earnest money of the petitioner firm and debarring it from participating in future tender process with regard to work for which NIT was issued, has been dismissed.

¶17

The facts relevant are that the second respondent invited tender for consultancy work of preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) for construction of ‘Bhairav-Nala’. Pursuant to the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[SAW-401/2020]

¶20

NIT issued, the petitioner submitted its Bid, which was accepted however, the petitioner failed to furnish required security amount and also failed to execute the contract and, therefore, after issuing notices dated 12.06.2020 and 29.06.2020, the order impugned forfeiting the earnest money and debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender process of the work in question has been passed.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Bid issued was valid only for a period of ninety days and, therefore, it was not open to be accepted after expiry of the period and thus the action of the respondents in forfeiting the earnest money and debarring the petitioner from participating in future tender process for work in question is exfacie illegal and arbitrary.

¶22

It is noticed that the work order was issued to the writpetitioner on 22.03.2020 and thereafter on account of spread of COVID-19 pandemic, time for execution of the contract and performance of the contract was extended. The writ-petitioner despite extension being grated, failed to execute the contract and deposit the security amount and, therefore, vide order impugned the earnest money deposited, has been forfeited.

¶23

Indisputably, the order impugned passed by the second respondent is appeable under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (Act of 2012). The issue with regard to permissibility of grant of extension and forfeiture of the earnest money on account of failure to execute the contract and non-deposit of the security amount can always be gone into by the appellate authority in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Act of 2012.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SAW-401/2020]

¶26

In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy of appeal does not warrant any interference by us in intra-court appeal jurisdiction.

¶27

The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶28

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J

¶29

7-DJ/-

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant v. the Jodhpur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant v. the Jodhpur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Shankar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dungar Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Dukiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs State Bank of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Dewa Ram Godara