Dismissed

Varsha Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 May 2024CW/3415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection of a financial bid in an e-tender process. The court held that the petitioner exhausted no alternative statutory remedy under Section 38 of the RTPP Act 2012. The writs were dismissed with liberty to file the appeal.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the RTPP Act 2012. Stay applications disposed of.

Varsha Construction Company Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3406/2024

¶3

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Address 130B Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Commissioner (Heritage), Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur

¶8

Dr. Commissioner (Garden), Jaipur Municipal CorporationHeritage, Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14556/2023

¶12

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Address 130-B, Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through Commissioner (Greater), Behind Hawamahal Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶16

Deputy Commissioner (Garden), Nagar Nigam Heritage, Behind Hawamahal, Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14557/2023

¶19

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Address 130-B, Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 5)

[CW-3406/2024]

Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through Commissioner (Greater), Behind Hawamahal Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶25

Deputy Commissioner (Garden), Nagar Nigam Heritage, Behind Hawamahal, Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14559/2023

¶28

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Address 130-B, Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶29

----Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through Commissioner (Greater), Behind Hawamahal Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶32

Deputy Commissioner (Garden), Nagar Nigam Heritage, Behind Hawamahal, Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14560/2023

¶35

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Address 130-B, Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Through Commissioner (Greater), Behind Hawamahal Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶39

Deputy Commissioner (Garden), Nagar Nigam Heritage, Behind Hawamahal, Manak Chowk, Bado Choupad, Jaipur.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3413/2024

¶42

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Address 130B Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

(3 of 5)

[CW-3406/2024]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶48

Commissioner (Heritage), Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur

¶49

Dr. Commissioner (Garden), Jaipur Municipal CorporationHeritage, Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.

¶50

----Respondents

¶51

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3414/2024

¶52

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Address 130B Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶53

----Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶56

Commissioner (Heritage), Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur

¶57

Dr. Commissioner (Garden), Jaipur Municipal CorporationHeritage, Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.

¶58

----Respondents

¶59

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3415/2024

¶60

Varsha Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Bhudev Prasad Dhakar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Address 130B Shri Ram Nagar Extension, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶61

----Petitioner

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶64

Commissioner (Heritage), Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk,

(4 of 5)

[CW-3406/2024]

Jaipur

Dr. Commissioner (Garden), Jaipur Municipal CorporationHeritage, Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur.

¶69

----Respondents

¶70

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S Bhardwaj Mr. Yogendra Singh

¶71

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma Prakash Yadav

¶72

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶73

08/05/2024

¶74

In all these writ petitions a common issues of law and facts are involved, hence with the consent of the counsels for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the tender process and he was found technically qualified, but in the finance bid, offered by the petitioner, he was found to be lowest one. But inspite of above, his bid was not accepted. Counsel submits that without assigning any reason, the bid offered by the petitioner, was not accepted. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶76

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 38 of the RTPP Act 2012 (for short “the Act of 2012”) but without availing the said remedy the petitioner has approached this court straightway by-passing the jurisdiction of

¶77

[CW-3406/2024]

¶78

(5 of 5)

¶79

the Appellate Authority hence. These petitions are not maintainable.

¶80

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner participated in the E-tender procurement process, initiated by the respondents, and the offered bid was rejected by the respondents by the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the respondents is appelable under Section 38 of the Act of 2012, but without availing the alternative statutory remedy the petitioner has straightway approached to this Court.

¶81

It is the settled proposition of law that whenever an alternative statutory remedy is available to a person he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. 7. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012 before the appropriate Appellate Authority.

¶82

In case, such appeal is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days, it is expected from the concerned Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal, after affording due opportunity of hearing, to all the respective parties claiming their rights in the procurement process expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of 15 days thereafter ignoring the period of limitation.

¶83

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶84

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶85

DIKSHA MISHRA /43-50

Varsha Construction Company v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha Construction Company 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

Govindsharan Bhangla S/O Late Shri Nonad Ram Ji Bhangla Vs Bhagwan Sahai Gupta S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal

Shri Govind Singh S/O Hajari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh Vs Mangej Singh S/O Shri Ganpat Singh

Pooran Mal Sharma Vs Collector and District Registrar

Nagesh Soral and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation Jaipur and

Smt. Uma Khunteta Wife of Shri Sanju Khunteta Vs Kunal Khunteta Son of Shri Sanju Khunteta