Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1013 (RAJ)

Manaram Ganpatram and Company v. State

2025-04-04

CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2025
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant special appeals have been preferred against the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2064/2008 & 1349/2008, whereby the said two identical writ petitions preferred by the appellant (writ petitioners), being arose out of a common set of events, were dismissed vide the said common impugned order. 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondents had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 07.11.2007 for Three Projects, as mentioned therein, and the last date for submission of the bids was 05.12.2007. The respondents, after examining the bids issued a letter dated 10.12.2007 whereby it pointed out certain deficiencies in the bid of the appellant and the appellant was directed to explain the same, which he did not. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) that as it could not respond to the clarifications sought regarding the deficiencies in the bid submitted by the appellant, by 14.12.2007, which was the deadline for submitting clarifications as per the letter dated 10.12.2007. Consequently, the bid was to be declared non-responsive. Thus, the financial bid ought not to have been opened, because though the appellant was the lowest bidder, however it could not have been allowed to continue its participation in the bid process as its bid was to be rejected for being non-responsive. 3.1. It was further submitted that the appellant withdrew its bid vide letter dated 22.12.2007 because he did not hear anything from the respondents in consequence of the appellant not submitting the clarifications sought by the respondents vide letter dated 10.12.2007 before the prescribed deadline i.e. 14.12.2007. However, as per learned counsel, without considering the case and situation of the appellant, the respondents have gone ahead to debar the appellant for future tenders vide order dated 08.02.2208, and has also forfeited its security amount vide letter dated 10.03.2008. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the requirement of the NIT, the bidders were supposed to submit bids complete in all respects, and in case there was any shortcomings, the bid was to be declared as non-responsive as per the applicable provisions. 3.3. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the requirement of the NIT, the bidders were supposed to submit bids complete in all respects, and in case there was any shortcomings, the bid was to be declared as non-responsive as per the applicable provisions. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant to his best belief had complied with all the conditions of the bidding process, which included payment of the earnest money, as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD), but since the appellant could clarify the objections raised, the appellant’s continuance to the financial bid was not called for and it against the applicable provisions. 3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the technical bid was submitted in time and the clarifications sought by the respondents on 10.12.2007 remained unanswered which paved way for no further action on the bid of the appellant. 3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the list of responsive financial bidders was to be finalized from the financial bids eligible for consideration as per Clause 23.4 (iii) & (iv) of the SBD, and as the appellant could not clarify, the appellant’s bid should have been rejected as he could not qualify as a responsive financial bidder for the reason that the bid was not in conformity with all the conditions, specifications and bidding documents, thus, it had material deviation/reservations. 3.6. Learned counsel also submitted that further as per Clause 26.3 of the SBD, if the financial bid was not substantially responsive, it was subject to be rejected and the appellant’s case fell under the same. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant, submitted that act of the appellant herein was coupled with deliberate mal-intent and was made to frustrate the entire bid process, despite him being a responsible ‘AA Class’ Contractor registered with P.W.D. since the year 1995. 4.1. It was submitted that the appellant wanted to wriggle out of the contract, without adhering to the tender process, in order to cause intentional harm to the process of bidding. It was further submitted that such conduct of the appellant clearly called for forfeiting of its security and debarring its participation in future tenders. 4.2. 4.1. It was submitted that the appellant wanted to wriggle out of the contract, without adhering to the tender process, in order to cause intentional harm to the process of bidding. It was further submitted that such conduct of the appellant clearly called for forfeiting of its security and debarring its participation in future tenders. 4.2. Learned Council further submitted that if the appellant had any grievance, there was a Standing Committee for Settlement of Disputes with respect to the bids as per Clause 23 of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules (PWF&AR), before whom the appellant could make appropriate representation, but failed to make the same. 4.3. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly considered the matter and dismissed the writ petitions. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court, after examining the matter, observes that the NIT was issued for Three Projects mentioned therein on 07.11.2007; last date for submission of bids was 05.12.2007. This Court further finds that a clarification was sought by the respondents from the appellant vide letter dated 10.12.2007 regarding certain deficiencies in its bid, but the appellant failed to furnish the necessary clarification. 7. This Court also finds that the deficiencies have been noted by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the impugned order dated 06.02.2017, whereby the provision for bid opening as well as the Rules in question alongwith Debarring & Suspension provisions have been dealt with at length. 8. This Court thus finds that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that ‘AA Class Contractor (appellant herein) who is operating in the public sphere since 1995, cannot be expected to wriggle out of a contract in the shade of not furnishing the necessary clarification regarding its bid to the objections raised by respondents. Had the appellant clarified and it would not have succeeded, then it would a different matter, but here the non-responsiveness of the appellant shows that there was a deliberate effort to come out of the tender in question. Had the appellant clarified and it would not have succeeded, then it would a different matter, but here the non-responsiveness of the appellant shows that there was a deliberate effort to come out of the tender in question. The act of the appellant does not deserve any kind of indulgence as has rightly been deprecated by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, while upholding the orders passed by the respondents, in so debarring the appellant and forfeiting his security. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the instant appeals. 10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed . All pending applications stand disposed of.