Allowed

M/S. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv) v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 May 2023CW/989/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of two writ petitions regarding a public tender for a medical hospital in Jaisalmer. The court quashed orders declaring the petitioner non-responsive and directed immediate execution of the project, conditioned on the petitioner waiving the mobilization amount to ensure timely completion.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders and direction to award the work and allow immediate execution of the project subject to waiver of mobilization amount.

M/S. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv) Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/015284]

¶2

COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 989/2023

¶4

M/s. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv), Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Mukesh Kumar S/o Poona Ram, Aged 29 Years, With Office At 701, Sona Enclave, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur - 302015 (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Rsrdc, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 302004.

¶9

The Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation, Unit Barmer, Rajasthan Through Its Project Director With Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, Barmer-Jaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Mo. 9414244096 Mail Id [email protected]).

¶10

The Military Engineer Services, Engineer In Chief's Branch, Department Of Contract Management, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110011

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2894/2023

¶14

M/s Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv), Through Its Authorised Representative Mr Mukesh Kumar, S/o Poona Ram, Aged About 29 Years Having Office At 701, Sona Enclave, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

The Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation, Through Its Managing Director, Rsrdc, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur Rajasthan - 302004.

¶19

The Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction

¶20

(2 of 5) [CW-989/2023]

¶21

[2023/RJJD/015284]

¶22

Corporation, Unit Barmer, Rajasthan, Through Its Project Director Having Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, Barmer-Jaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶23

Mahendra Kumar, Project Director, Rsrdc Ltd., Unit Barmer, Having Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, Barmer-Jaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶24

Hawasingh, Aao (Gr-I), Rsrdc Ltd., Unit Barmer, Having Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, BarmerJaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶25

S. H. Mahur, Pd Ele Rsrdc Ltd., Jodhpur Having Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, Barmer-Jaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶26

Suresh Sharma, Dy. General Manager, Rsrdc Ltd., Jodhpur, Having Office At Flat No. 407, Ashapoorna Crown Plaza, Barmer-Jaisalmer Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶27

The Military Engineer Services, Engineer In Chief Branch, Department Of Contract Management, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110011.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanyat Lodha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
	Mr. Ankur Mathur
	Mr. Mahendra Kumar,Project Director

¶30

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶31

Order

¶32

15/05/2023

¶33

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.989/2023.

¶34

"i. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned action of respondents of declaring the

(3 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/015284]

[CW-989/2023]

petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive may be declared as arbitrary, bad and illegal ;

¶39

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the action of the Respondents dated 11.01.2023 (impugned communication / Annexure A-1) whereby the petitioner has been declared as non-responsive may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner and if found successful, may be awarded the work for construction of New Medical Hospital at Jaisalmer, Rajasthan Phase-II'."

¶40

Vide order dated 10.05.2023, this Court had passed the following order :-

¶41

"Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in accordance with the law, Government is ready to give the tender to the present petitioner. He further submits that though they are ready to give the tender in the interest of public of Jaisalmer, which is a far flung area and requires immediate medical facility, but at the same time, the anxiety of the State is that the petitioner shall not complete the project in time as his past record shows that he is unable to complete the project in time.

¶42

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the project in question is critical to the medical health and care and thus, State was under contemplation whether the person, who has a reputation of not completing the protects in time could be given such a tender or not, however, he assures this Court that otherwise there is no other issue and the tender can be granted if some kind of assurance is given by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the penalty clause to be increased to ensure the timely compliance of the project.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are bonafide entity and they are committed to complete the project in time and would not create any delay from

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/015284]

[CW-989/2023]

their side. He further submits that the petitioner are alive to the critical requirement of the project in question.

¶48

Since due to the time constraint, any further hearing is not possible, the matter be listed on 15.05.2023."

¶49

Today, Mr. Sanayat Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Ankur Mathur for Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation and Mahendra Singh - the Project Director jointly submit that as per their respective instructions, the petitioner may start discharging the project, which is outcome of the tender process in question with immediate effect, as it involves an extremely delicate matter of public interest for the District of Jaisalmer. The project involves medical facilities in farflung area of Jaisalmer district; the execution of which is extremely important for the citizens of those areas, which barely have adequate medical facilities. Realizing such importance of the project, all of them together have agreed that the project in pursuance of the tender shall be executed expeditiously.

¶50

Learned AAG along with the project manager has however, shown their anxiety for any kind of delay in completing the project in question, which also is addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner by proposing that the petitioner shall not claim the mobilization amount in question under clause 40 of the condition of the contract, which is 5% of the total amount and shall mobilize such capital and resources on his own to show that he is committed to the timely completion of the project.

¶51

Such proposition when given is accepted by the learned AAG and project coordinator, as they also are of the opinion that if

[2023/RJJD/015284]

[CW-989/2023]

(5 of 5)

mobilization amount is generated by the petitioner on his own capacity, it will show his commitment towards the work and it shall be easy for the respondents to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has real intentions of completing the work in time or not.

¶56

On such broader consensus having been arrived at between the parties, the present petitions are disposed of while directing the petitioner not to claim any mobilization amount at the threshold, which is about 5% of the total amount, as per the clause 40 of the condition of the contract. The respondents shall be required to allow the petitioner to go ahead with the project immediately. The continues performance appraisal shall be made by the respondents in terms of the contract. The petitioner shall be liable for any kind of default on his part strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract.

¶57

In light of aforesaid development, the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (in SBCWP No.989/2023) and 11.02.2023 (in SBCWP No.2894/2023 are quashed and set aside.

¶58

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶59

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶60

270-271-Sudheer/-

M/S. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv) v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rcpl-Sbhh (Jv) v. State of Rajasthan

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

Suresh Chandra Jhanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Aasheesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Akha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hasan Ali Vs Shree Ram Singh Vishnoi

Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan