Order 1) Heard on stay application. 2) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Notice Inviting Bids dated 16.01.2025 and 17.01.2025, which were issued on regional basis and sought quashment of the said NIBs. Apart from that the other reliefs have also been sought. 3) The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Notice Inviting Bids (NIBs) with regard to Outdoor Media Services items like (1) FRONT LIT FLEX WITH FRAME Front: (i) Solvent Printings of 4 pass, (ii) Frame of 1”Square MS Pipe of 2.0 KG lengths of 20 ft. (iii) Installation with GI wire on top & Bottom and (iv) Flex of 280 GSM Black Back; (2) FLEX SOLVENT 4 PASS WITH PRINTING: (i) Use CMYK colour profile, (ii) Use proper colour management system and (iii) For printing image, use minimum 300 DPI resolution image, and other works, were issued. The main challenge to the present NIBs is that in the Notice Inviting Bids, no estimated quantity of the services, for which rate contract bid was invited, was fixed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such NIB is in violation of Rule 29(2)(a) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to, as “the Rules of 2013). It is also his submission that by the year 2022, initially similar Notice Inviting Bids were issued for State level and on making hue and cry from proposed bidders, a corrigendum was issued. Subsequently also, similar kind of NIB was issued and corrigendum was issued later. Ignoring the same, when similar kind of Notice Inviting Bids were issued in 2024, the same was assailed before this Court and this Court has granted stay not to finalize the tender process. While the said writ petition was pending, the said NIB was withdrawn and the present NIBs were issued without prescription of the estimated quantity of services. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in spite of adjournment of the matter for specific instructions, the Authorities are hastily taking decisions on all of a sudden and in fact the bids were also open to defeat the relief claimed in the present writ petition. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in spite of adjournment of the matter for specific instructions, the Authorities are hastily taking decisions on all of a sudden and in fact the bids were also open to defeat the relief claimed in the present writ petition. 5) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not a participant in the bidding process and he has no locus standi to challenge the Notice Inviting Bids. It is also his contention that the petitioner is not a qualified bidder and he suppressed the material facts in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ is required to be dismissed at the threshold. 6) The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent further contended that judicial review is impermissible in commercial matters unless exceptions are made out. According to him, the present case is not falling under any exception. The learned counsel also submitted that though the estimated quantity of the work is not prescribed, however, the value of the work is prescribed. Therefore, the defects, which were found in the NIB, which was under challenged before this Court in another Writ petition of the petitioner, were rectified. Hence, the present NIB was issued, which according to him, is in tune with the lapses pointed out in the previous writ petition. 7) The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that Rule 29(2)(d) of the Rules of 2013 permits them to enter into rate contract without mentioning the quantity, place and time of the supply, subject matter of procurement. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) N.G.Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors. Reported in (2022)6 Supreme Court Cases 127 (ii) Ridhi Sidhi Associates (M/s) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2010(1) RLW 643 (Raj.), (iii) Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1967 and (iv) Radhey Global Industries &Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12650/2023], decided by this Court on 19.11.2024. 8) Learned AAG appearing for the first respondent adopted the same arguments urged by the second respondent. 9) I have considered the rival submission of the parties and carefully perused the impugned NIBs as well as the material available on record. Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12650/2023], decided by this Court on 19.11.2024. 8) Learned AAG appearing for the first respondent adopted the same arguments urged by the second respondent. 9) I have considered the rival submission of the parties and carefully perused the impugned NIBs as well as the material available on record. 10) It is a fact that the petitioner has challenged a NIB issued in the year 2024 and such NIB was issued for State level procurement of Outdoor Media Services and he has interim order in his favour. In the previous writ petition also, he is not participant in the bidding process. Still, he was aggrieved by the procedure adopted for inviting Outdoor Media Services. These services are pertaining to various flex frames, solvent printings and other works, which were primarily intended to advertise the government schemes and visits of the ministers etc. There is also no dispute that the estimated value of the work is stipulated in the present NIBs i.e. Rs.5 crores and it is also not in dispute that the quantity of the Media Services were not prescribed in the NIBs. Admittedly, the various services sought under the NIB were not having similar rate of contract and each services have different set of rates of contract. 11) It is relevant to refer to Rule 29(2)(a) and (d) of the Rules of 2013, which reads hereunder:- “Rule 29. Rate contract.- (1) In addition to the conditions included in sub-section (1) of section 36 for adopting the method of rate contract, a procuring entity may adopt the method of rate contract, when it determines that by virtue of the nature of subject matter of procurement, the need for that subject matter may arise on an urgent basis during a given period of time. (2) The procedure for rate contract shall be as under:- (a) A procuring entity may award a rate contract by the method of open competitive bidding. If it is not possible to adopt the method of open competitive bidding, the procuring entity after recording reasons may adopt another method of procurement. (2) The procedure for rate contract shall be as under:- (a) A procuring entity may award a rate contract by the method of open competitive bidding. If it is not possible to adopt the method of open competitive bidding, the procuring entity after recording reasons may adopt another method of procurement. An approximate quantity of required goods, works or service during the period shall be indicated in the Notice Inviting Bids, but no minimum quantity is guaranteed.” xxx xxx xxx (d) A rate contract shall be entered, for price without a commitment for quantity, place and time of supply of subject matter of procurement, with the bidder of lowest priced bid or most advantageous bid.” 12) Prima facie, a reading of Rule 29(2)(a) of the Rules of 2013, it is clear that procuring entity required to mention approximate quantity of required goods, works or services for the period indicated in the Notice Inviting Bids. However, no minimum quantity is guaranteed. This means the quantity of the services is primarily required to be indicated in the Notice Inviting Bids. However, in the present NIBs, admittedly, no quantity has been prescribed. However, value of the services were indicated. Indisputably, the various services, which are prescribed in the NIB, were having various rate of contract, which are to be quoted in the bidding process and there is no indication of at least approximate value of each services which could be allowed to render during the period covered by the NIB. 13) The learned counsel for the second respondent’s reliance on Rule 29(2)(d) of the Rules of 2013, which prima facie, do not support the claim of the second respondent that without quantity also they can invite NIB. The said rule only refers to the situation where once lowest bidder price is determined in the NIB, a rate contract has to be entered and the said rate contract do not require mention of quantity, place and time of supply of the procured services. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the view that these rules do not come to the rescue of the second respondent. 14) It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process. However, he has been agitating with the procedure which has been prescribed in the NIBs, which NIBs were vague with regard to quantity of the services to be procured by the NIBs. 14) It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not participated in the tender process. However, he has been agitating with the procedure which has been prescribed in the NIBs, which NIBs were vague with regard to quantity of the services to be procured by the NIBs. Even assuming that he had participated in the tender process, the rule of acquiescence also comes in his way. Prima facie, the previous attempts to assail the similar kind of notification and his business in such services justifies some kind of locus to challenge the procedure. Therefore, he cannot be said to be termed as a person of having no interest in the transactions. 15) This Court is also aware of the fact that judicial review and interference of Constitutional Court in commercial matters are very limited and in exceptional circumstances. This Court even finds some defects in the decision making process or there are procedural aberrations or error in assessment or prejudice to tenderer is made out, the Court show disinclination to interfere in the tender process except where the public interest over weigh the interest of private parties. The other judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are also on the same principles; as such, this Court is of the view that it is not required to specifically advert to each of the decision. 16) Now, the question is whether it is, prima facie, established that public interest serves if the interdiction in the process or it will result in burden to expenditure of the Government. It is needless to say that the rates of contract for various services would normally depends upon the quantity of the services/work. If there is a more voluminous quantity of services, definitely, some kind of low rates are quoted in the bidding process. If the volume of the work is small, more price would be normally quoted. The value of the services would have been relevant, had there been commonality of the rates with regard to various services sought under the NIB. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent unable to justify how the second respondent is benefited when quantity of the work is not indicated in the NIB and he has also failed to justify how prices of services are quoted for each service based on the consolidated estimated value of the services. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent unable to justify how the second respondent is benefited when quantity of the work is not indicated in the NIB and he has also failed to justify how prices of services are quoted for each service based on the consolidated estimated value of the services. The second respondent would get benefit if quantity of the services were indicated in the notice inviting bid and exchequer of 2 nd respondent would get benefited. The same is purpose behind the prescription of estimated quantities as prescribed under Rule 29(2)(1) of the Rules of 2013. The past procedure adopted in similar kind of bidding process of similar kind of services would reflect that a corrigendum was issued prescribing estimated quantity of services. If the intention behind the prescription of estimated value is to get better price to state or it’s instrumentalities, non prescription of quantity of services would defeat public interest. This Court feels that interference would serve the public interest rather than vested interest. 17) In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent not to finalize the tender process. If tenders are finalized, the respondents are directed not to proceed further pending the writ petition.