The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of a tender notice issued for MGNREGA works. The court held that the RTPP Act 2012 rules applied, not the 1996 Panchayati Raj Rules, finding no illegality in the notice period or the issuing authority.
Petition dismissed; stay and pending applications also dismissed.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10106/2025
M/s Pari and Sons, A Proprietorship Firm of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Chawla Situated at Village and Post Pragpura, District Kotputli-Behror, Through its Proprietor Mahaveer Prasad Chawla, aged about 52 Years Son of Shri Omkar Chawla, Resident of Village and Post Pragpura, Ward No. 15, Near Gausala, Tehsil Poata, District Kotputli- Behror
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Pradeepkalwaniya |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Kapil Prakash Mathur-AAG with |
| Mr. | Saurabh Sharma |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order
10/07/2025
the following prayer:-
“(a) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the tender Notice No. 1516/2025-26 dated 20/06/2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 may kindly be declared to be illegal and arbitrary and the
(2 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
[CW-10106/2025]
same may kindly be quashed and set aside and;
(b) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof also quash and set aside the proceeding of the tender No. 1516/2025-26 dated 20/06/2025 and further also if during the pendency of the writ petition, if any work order is issued, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be restrained from issuing any work order pursuant to the tender notice dated 20/06/2025 issued by the Respondent No. 5 and;
(c) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof also direct the Respondents to initiate the enquiry against the Respondent No 5 who has been issued by the Notice inviting Tender on 20/06/2026 in violation of the Rules after changing the terms and conditions of the tender notice, just to give undue benefits and;
(d) award costs of this writ petition to the Petitioner, and
(1) The respondents have changed the game Rules within seven days of the issuance of the earlier tender notice dated 13.06.2025 by the new tender notice dated 20.06.2025.
(2) Without giving sufficient time i.e. 30 days in the notice inviting tender, the respondents have violated Rule 185 of the Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, the Rules of 1996’).
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
[CW-10106/2025]
(3 of 6)
(3) The tender has been issued by a person, who is not competent to do so i.e. the Block Development Officer (for short, ‘the BDO’).
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
[CW-10106/2025]
(4 of 6)
condition that the participating firms must have an average turnover of two years of the tender amount i.e. above 1.5 times. Counsel submits that the aforesaid tender has been issued by the BDO of the concerned Panchayat Samiti for various works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, ‘the MGNREGA Scheme’), a project run by the Central Government and the above tender process was issued in pursuance of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act of 2012) and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the provisions contained under the Rules of 1996 are not applicable in the present matter. Counsel submits that as per the amended Rules of 2013, the period of notice inviting tender for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs up to Rs. 1 Crore is 10 days but in the instant case, the period was prescribed as 21 days. Lastly, he argued that the BDO was competent to issue the E-tender as per the provisions of the Act of 2012 and the Rules of 2013. Hence, after following the due process of law and the relevant Rules, the E-tender process has been issued/initiated, which requires no interference of this Court and the present petition is liable to be rejected.
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
[CW-10106/2025]
(5 of 6)
(6 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:25507]
[CW-10106/2025]
10 This Court finds no illegality in the same, which warrants any interference of this Court and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/199
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the tender notice issued by the Block Development Officer for MGNREGA work was illegal due to changed terms and insufficient notice period.
Whether the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules 1996 or the RTPP Act 2012 and Rules 2013 applied to the tender process.
Whether the revision of the tender conditions constituted an arbitary act warranting judicial interference.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Pari and Sons
State of Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
