ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(a) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash, cancel and/or set aside the office order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure-8) and further be pleased to quash, cancel and/or set aside the fresh NIT No.05/2023 (Annexure-9) (b) By issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide for the layout plan at the earliest so that work may be initiated. (c) Or in the alternative by issuance of a suitable writ, direction or order, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to return the earnest money along with the interest and it is further prayed under this prayer that the Respondents may further be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner firm for causing harassment to the Petitioner. (d) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other appropriate order or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the Petitioners co. and in the interest of justice and further to set a precedent so that such illegal actions are not repeated by Respondents in future.” 2. The petitioner firm was registered under the category of AA class contractor for civil works vide order dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure-1) and subsequently vide order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure-2), registration of the petitioner firm was renewed. An NIT bearing No.08/2022-23 was issued on behalf of the Administrator of Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board for work of Construction of Government Agriculture College Building (Academic Block) Kherwara District, Udaipur from AA & A class enlisted contractors. The petitioner firm participated in the tender process and after having being found successful in the said process, the procuring entity awarded a work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5) to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm also deposited a sum of Rs.17,76,140/- in term of Clause 6 of the NIT as earnest money. 3. The petitioner firm participated in the tender process and after having being found successful in the said process, the procuring entity awarded a work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5) to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm also deposited a sum of Rs.17,76,140/- in term of Clause 6 of the NIT as earnest money. 3. After being awarded the work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023, the petitioner firm vide letters/communications dated 31.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 14.06.2023, 04.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 requested the procuring entity to provide for layout plan with reference to the plot area, reference pillar, setting out plan for main building, etc., as mentioned under the work order-cum-contract, but to no avail and thus, being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner firm furnished a representation dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure-7) to the Executive Engineer and again requested to provide for layout plan. 4. Thereafter, vide its office order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure-8), the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Udaipur, cancelled the work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 awarded to the petitioner firm and an amount of Rs.17,76,140/- paid by the petitioner firm as an earnest money, was forfeited. The reason provided by the procuring entity to cancel the work order-cum-contract was failure on part of the petitioner firm to start the work in timely manner. Thereafter, the procuring entity on the very same day i.e. 18.08.2023, issued a fresh tender bearing NIT No.05/2023-24 and thus, being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner-firm has preferred the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that :- (a) Not even a prima facie attempt was made at the hands of the procuring authority to appreciate the fact that the petitioner firm was continuously requesting the respondents to provide for the layout plan as per the work order-cum-contract. (b) The action of the procuring authority in cancelling the work order and forfeiting the earnest money of Rs.17,76,140/-deposited by the petitioner firm and that too without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm, is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. (c) The ground taken by the procuring entity to cancel the work order-cum-contract was that the petitioner firm failed to start the work in a timely manner but, it was the procuring entity which failed to provide the layout plan as per the work order-cum-contract. (c) The ground taken by the procuring entity to cancel the work order-cum-contract was that the petitioner firm failed to start the work in a timely manner but, it was the procuring entity which failed to provide the layout plan as per the work order-cum-contract. (d) Several communications and representations were issued to the procuring entity by the petitioner firm in this regard, but the procuring entity miserably failed to provide the layout plan and thus, the petitioner firm cannot be held responsible in terms of the inaction done on part of the procuring entity. (e) It is evident from the work order-cum-contract that the petitioner firm quoted the lowest price and no other firm was ready to do the work on the said price and thus, the petitioner firm ready and willing to carry out the work, but cancelling the work order-cum-contract by assigning the reason that the petitioner firm failed to start the work in a timely manner and by issuing fresh tender for the same work, is unfair on part of the procuring entity. (f) According to Rule 42 (13)(c) of the RTPP Rules, 2013, the procuring entity was required to return the bid security at the earliest upon the cancellation of the procurement process, but, the respondents without adhering to the said provisions, had forfeited the said amount. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the counsel representing the petitioner and submits that :- (a) Several letters were given to the petitioner firm to execute the work, but the petitioner firm failed to act upon the same and did not attend the office of the procuring entity. (b) The procuring entity did not receive any letter/communications from the petitioner firm and thus, the letters/communications dated 31.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 14.06.2023, 04.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 (Annexure-6) requesting the procuring entity to provide the layout plan with reference to the plot area, reference pillar, setting out plan for main building, etc., by the petitioner firm, is a false and concocted story. (b) The procuring entity did not receive any letter/communications from the petitioner firm and thus, the letters/communications dated 31.05.2023, 07.06.2023, 14.06.2023, 04.08.2023 and 17.08.2023 (Annexure-6) requesting the procuring entity to provide the layout plan with reference to the plot area, reference pillar, setting out plan for main building, etc., by the petitioner firm, is a false and concocted story. (c) The Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Udaipur, repeatedly requested the petitioner to complete the formal agreement and produce the stamp worth Rs.1,19,210/- within a period of 7 days positively and it was also directed that the petitioner firm shall obtain the layout plan within a period of 10 days from the Assistant Engineer, Udaipur III and shall also complete the work within a period of 12 months, but the petitioner firm paid no heed to it. (d) The work order had to be completed in a time bound manner and sheer negligence on part of the petitioner firm compelled the procuring authority to take necessary action against the petitioner firm, who failed to start the construction work, even after a lapse of more than a month time from the date of commencement. Therefore, the procuring entity after taking permission from the competent department, forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner firm to the extent of 2% of the bid value, in accordance with Rule 42 (11)(b) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTPP Rules, 2013’). (e) The competent department, directed the Executive Engineer to cancel the procurement process and offered for acceptance the rates of lowest or most advantageous bidder to the next lowest or most advantageous bidders in accordance with Rule No.76 (3) of the RTPP Rules 2013. (f) Rule 42 (11)(b) specifically lays down that the bid security taken from the bidder shall be forfeited in the case, when the bidder does not execute the agreement after placement of work order within a specified period. Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 7. The work order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5) clearly directed the petitioner firm to contact the Assistant Engineer, Udaipur III in order to take the layout plan within a period of 10 days in order to start the work and complete the same within a period of 12 months. 7. The work order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5) clearly directed the petitioner firm to contact the Assistant Engineer, Udaipur III in order to take the layout plan within a period of 10 days in order to start the work and complete the same within a period of 12 months. The petitioner firm has placed on record letter-cum-communication dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-6) requesting the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer to provide it the layout plan i.e. after a period of 20 days, whereas, as per the work order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5), the petitioner was under an obligation to contact the Assistant Engineer, Udaipur for the layout plan within 10 days from the date of issuance of the work order. The petitioner has not furnished any reason for the delay in contacting the Assistant Engineer and neither any pleading has been taken to this extent and thus, it clearly reflects default on the part of the petitioner firm. 8. It is also important to note that in the work order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5), it was specifically mentioned that the date of commencement and completion of the above work shall be 22.05.2023 and 21.05.2024 respectively. The petitioner contacted the Assistant Engineer, Udaipur on 31.05.2023 whereas, as per the directions given in the work order, the petitioner ought to have commenced the work on 22.05.2023. The petitioner was further requested to attend the office to complete the formal agreement and produce stamp worth Rs.1,19,210/- within 7 days positively, however, the petitioner failed to complete the formal agreement and produce the stamp worth Rs.1,19,210/- within 7 days and no pleading to that extent has been taken as to what prevented the petitioner from completing the formal agreement and produce stamp within a period of 7 days from the issuance of work order dated 11.05.2023. 9. The respondents in their reply have taken on record the communications dated 19.05.2023, 26.05.2023 and 29.05.2023 [Annexure-R-1 (C)], requesting the petitioner to take the layout plan and start the work with immediate effect, however, the petitioner did not comply with the said communications and has neither refuted that the said communications were not received by it. 9. The respondents in their reply have taken on record the communications dated 19.05.2023, 26.05.2023 and 29.05.2023 [Annexure-R-1 (C)], requesting the petitioner to take the layout plan and start the work with immediate effect, however, the petitioner did not comply with the said communications and has neither refuted that the said communications were not received by it. The respondents have also placed on record the communication in the form of first reminder dated 13.06.2023 [Annexure-R-1 (f)] made to the petitioner firm, requesting the petitioner firm to attend the office for executing the formal agreement with the stamp paper worth Rs.1,19,210/- immediately and it is also mentioned in the last communication that the respondents have noticed that the petitioner has neither taken the layout from the Assistant Engineer to start the construction work at site, nor has attended the office for executing the formal agreement with stamp papers. The petitioner firm has not denied such communications and no plausible reason is assigned for not complying with the said communications. 10. Other communications dated 22.06.2023 and 30.06.2023 [(Annexure-R-1 (G)] and [(Annexure-R-1 (H)] have been placed on record which are the inter communications between the respondent No.3-Assistant Engineer and the respondent No.2-Executive Engineer, informing and reiterating that the petitioner has not contacted the office to take the layout plan and thereafter, the respondent No.2, proposed to forfeit the bid security of 2% amounting to Rs.17,76,140/- on account of default of the petitioner in complying with the conditions laid down in the work order dated 11.05.2023. And accordingly, the Executive Engineer vide office order dated 18.08.2023 [(Annexure-R-1 (O)], cancelled the bid process as well as the work order dated 11.05.2023 and a fresh NIT No.05/2023-24 dated 18.08.2023 [(Annexure-R-1 (Q)] was issued in respect to the same work. It is submitted by the respondents that for the fresh NIT, the respondents have received the technical bid on 04.09.2023, which was opened on 06.09.2023 and the technical bid evaluation work is also completed. Thus, it is apparent that, the petitioner has utterly failed to comply with the directions laid down in the work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 despite repeated opportunities given to him. 11. Thus, it is apparent that, the petitioner has utterly failed to comply with the directions laid down in the work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 despite repeated opportunities given to him. 11. The contention of the petitioner that on account of the layout not being furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to commence the work w.e.f. 22.05.2023 and further in the absence of layout, the petitioner was unable to complete the formal agreement and produce the stamp worth Rs.1,19,210/- within 7 days, is not acceptable, as from the perusal of the documents placed on record by the respondents, the petitioner has been repeatedly requested to attend the office of the respondents for the purpose of collecting the layout and for completing the formal agreement and produce the stamp as well. The petitioner has not refuted the said communications placed on record by the respondents, thus, it is apparent that such communications have been duly received by the petitioner firm, but the petitioner firm chose not to collect the layout and complete the formal agreement and produce the stamp duty. 12. This Court finds that Rule 42 of the RTPP Rules, 2013, pertains to the “Bid Security” wherein, under Sub-Rule 11, certain contingencies have been laid down in which, one of the contingencies i.e. sub-Rule (b), states that:- “42. Bid Security.- xxxx (11) The Bid security taken from a bidder shall be forfeited in the following cases, namely:- (a) xxxx (b) when the bidder does not execute the agreement, if any, after placement of supply/work order within a specified period. Bid Security.- xxxx (11) The Bid security taken from a bidder shall be forfeited in the following cases, namely:- (a) xxxx (b) when the bidder does not execute the agreement, if any, after placement of supply/work order within a specified period. (c) xxxx (d) xxxx (e) xxxx” In the present case, the work order-cum-contract was issued to the petitioner on 11.05.2023 and as per the conditions laid down in the work order, the petitioner was required to complete the formal agreement within a period of 7 days positively, i.e. by 18.05.2023, and further, the petitioner failed to contact the Assistant Engineer in order to take the layout plan within 10 days rather, the petitioner for the first time, contacted the Assistant Engineer on 31.05.2023, i.e. after the stipulated time period of 10 days and therefore, Rule 42 (13)(c) of the RTPP Rules, 2013, would not apply in the present case, as the procuring entity did not cancelled the procurement process on its own rather, cancellation of the procurement process was for the reason that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions/directions given in the work order and failed to commence the work from 22.05.2023 as laid down in the work order dated 11.05.2023. Rule 42 (13)(c) is reproduced hereunder:- “42. Bid Security.- xxxx (13) The procuring entity shall promptly return the bid security after the earliest of the following events, namely:- (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) the cancellation of the procurement process; or (d) xxxx” Had the petitioner complied with all the conditions and directions as laid down under the work order dated 11.05.2023 and in spite that, the procuring entity while invoking Rule 42 (13) (c), had cancelled the procurement process, then, the respondents were under an obligation to promptly return the bid security amount to the petitioner, but the case here is not so. 13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the fact that the petitioner has committed default in adhering to the conditions/directions laid down in the work order-cum-contract dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure-5), this Court does not find that the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Executive Engineer, cancelling the procurement process and re-inviting the NIT No.05/2023-24 (Annexure-9) to be faulty. 14. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 15. 14. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 15. No order as to costs.