The petitioner firm challenged the declaration of its technical bid as non-responsive due to failure to submit ESI and EPF certificates. The court held that the omission was material under Rule 59(2)(c) and the bid was not responsive under Rule 59(4).
Writ petition dismissed; stay petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:36374]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14191/2024
M/s. Mahadev Constructions, A Class Pwd Contractor, Having Its Office At Village And Post Rukhara, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi (Raj.) Through Its Sole Proprietor Harish Kumar Rathore S/o Ganesha Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rukhada, Pasolia, Sirohi (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Puneet Jangu Mr. Mahipal Singh Charan
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/09/2024
As per condition 21 of the NIT dated 16.07.2024, the ESI and EPF registration certificates were essential to be filed along with the bid document.
[2024:RJ-JD:36374]
[CW-14191/2024]
(2 of 3)
“(2) A responsive bid is one that meets the requirements of the bidding documents without material deviation, reservation, or omission where: -
(a) “deviation” is a departure from the requirements specified in the bidding documents;
(b) “reservation” is the setting of limiting conditions or withholding from complete acceptance of the requirements specified in the bidding documents; and
(c) “Omission” is the failure to submit part or all of the information or documentation required in the bidding documents.”
[2024:RJ-JD:36374]
[CW-14191/2024]
(3 of 3)
which, specifically is an ‘omission’ as defined under Rule 59(2)(c) of the Rules of 2013. The technical bid therefore, could not have been termed to be in conformity with Rule 59(4) of the Rules of 2013 and hence, could not have declared to be responsive.
(REKHA BORANA),J
24-KashishS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-submission of mandatory ESI and EPF registration certificates renders the bid non-responsive under the Rajasthan Transperancy in Public Procurement Rules, 2013.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Mahadev Constructions
The State Of Rajasthan
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
