Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Consortiom Sammaan And Pcb Je Services vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:8449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 708/2026
Consortiom Sammaan And Pcb Je Services, Through Its
Authorise Representative Dr. Surendra Bhandari, S//o Late Sh.
Ratan Chand Sa Bhandari, Aged About 71 Years, Resident C-83
Kamla Nehru Nagar, Extension First, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
Medical And Health.
2. National Health Mission, Through Its Managing Director,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme-Jaipur,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of
Mr. Mukesh Dave
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
Reserved on:- 10/02/2026
Pronounced on:- 17/02/2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity and
propriety of the order dated 07.01.2026, whereby the petitioner’s
bid for operation and maintenance of “104 Janani Express
Services” was declared non-responsive and consequently rejected.
2. The brief facts as disclosed in the present petition are that
the petitioner, a non-profit organization, participated in a tender
process initiated by respondent No. 2 for operation and
maintenance of “104 Janani Express Services” pursuant to a
Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 26.11.2025. By way of a
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (2 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
corrigendum, the last date for submission of bids was fixed as
29.12.2025, requiring online submission by 2:00 PM and
submission of hard copies by 3:00 PM on the same day. The
petitioner submitted its bid within the stipulated time. A Bank
Guarantee in favour of Rajasthan State Health Society for a sum
of ₹10,30,00,000/- was obtained on 29.12.2025, and the relevant
documents were uploaded online before 2:00 PM. The requisite
hard copies were also submitted within the prescribed time. As per
notice dated 26.12.2025, the petitioner’s technical presentation
was scheduled for 31.12.2025. However, on 30.12.2025, the
petitioner was informed telephonically that its presentation had
been put on hold on account of verification of the Bank Guarantee.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the issuing
Bank confirmed to the respondents that the Bank Guarantee had
been issued and delivered on 29.12.2025 within the stipulated
time. Despite this, the petitioner was not permitted to make its
technical presentation, whereas other bidders were allowed to
proceed. The petitioner had earlier filed SBCWP No. 404/2025
challenging the inaction of the respondents. During the pendency
of that petition, a communication dated 07.01.2026 was issued
declaring the petitioner’s bid as “non-responsive” purportedly
under Rule 55(9) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Rules, 2013. The earlier writ petition was thereafter
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.
4. During the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court,
vide order dated 13.01.2026, while issuing notice to the
respondents, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated
07.01.2026 and provisionally permitted the petitioner to
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (3 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
participate in the tender process, subject to the final outcome of
the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had fully complied with all essential conditions of the
tender. The Bank Guarantee (Annex-03) of ₹10.30 crores was
obtained from bank on 29.12.2025 and was uploaded online at
1:50 PM, and the hard copy was physically submitted within the
prescribed time (Annex-07). The issuing Bank subsequently
confirmed the issuance and delivery within time. It was contended
that once the Bank verified the authenticity and timely issuance of
the guarantee, there was neither legal nor factual basis to reject
the petitioner’s bid as non-responsive. Such compliance, it was
argued, satisfied both the letter and spirit of the tender conditions
and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement (RTPP)
Rules, 2013.
6. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not afforded
any opportunity to explain or clarify the alleged deficiency
regarding the Bank Guarantee prior to the impugned declaration
of “non-responsiveness.” The denial of a hearing, it was
contended, violates the fundamental principles of natural justice,
including the rule of audi alteram partem. Learned counsel also
submitted that the respondents arbitrarily withheld the petitioner’s
technical presentation while permitting other bidders to proceed
as scheduled, which demonstrates discrimination and non-
application of mind.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy in law. The
impugned action directly affects the petitioner’s civil and
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (4 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
contractual rights. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition
be allowed, the order/communication dated 07.01.2026 be
quashed and set aside, and the petitioner be included in the final
selection list.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the
RTPP Act, 2012 and the RFP itself. Clause 11.15(g) provides for a
first appeal before the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health
Department, and a second appeal before the Secretary, Finance
(Budget) Department. The petitioner filed a first appeal on
04.01.2026, which is pending consideration. The pendency of this
appeal was not disclosed in the writ petition, rendering the
petition premature.
9. It was further submitted that the bid required submission of
a legally valid Bank Guarantee, Demand Draft, or Banker’s Cheque
as bid security. The petitioner submitted only a Bank Sanction
Letter online, which is merely an internal proposal issued by the
Bank and does not constitute a legally binding financial
instrument. The final Bank Guarantee was issued only after the
online submission deadline. Therefore, submission of the Sanction
Letter did not satisfy the mandatory bid conditions, and the
petitioner’s online bid was incomplete and non-responsive at the
relevant time. It was contended that the respondents acted strictly
in accordance with Rule 55(9) of the RTPP Rules and Section 25 of
the RTPP Act, 2012, which authorize exclusion of bids that
materially depart from the bidding requirements. The petitioner’s
failure to submit a valid Bank Guarantee online constituted such a
material departure.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (5 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
10. It was thus submitted that the order/communication dated
07.01.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s bid was based on proper
scrutiny, supported by the Bank’s confirmation regarding the
Sanction Letter, and was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
Accordingly, no interference by this Court is warranted and the
writ petition deserves dismissal with costs.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
12. Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and
circumstances of the case, and upon careful examination of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the RFP and the RTPP
Rules required submission of a valid Bank Guarantee as bid
security. The alleged bank guarantee (Annex-03) submitted by the
petitioner was merely an internal proposal of the Bank sanctioning
issue of Bank Guarantee and did not constitute a legally binding
Bank Guarantee. Further, the letter/communication issued by the
Canara Bank clearly stipulates that the Sanction Letter was
handed over the trust at 1:30 PM on 29.12.2025 and SMFS
was send to Bank (Yours) on the same day only regarding
Bank Guarantee. Thus, this Court has no doubt in its mind that
The legally enforceable Bank Guarantee was issued only after the
prescribed time and the same was not available with the petitioner
at the time of online submission of bid as required under condition
no.10 of the notice inviting bid (NIB) which specifically mention
that only Banker cheque, Demand Draft or Bank Guarantee shall
be considered for security deposit and this shall be necessary
document for the bid. Therefore, the petitioner’s online submission
did not satisfy the mandatory requirements at the relevant time,
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (6 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
and the respondents were justified in declaring the bid non-
responsive.
13. Section 25 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Act, 2012 reads as under:
“25. Exclusion of bids.–
1) A procuring entity shall exclude a bid if–
(a) the bidder is not qualified in terms of Section 7;
(b) the bid materially departs from the requirements
specified in the bidding documents or contains false
information;
(c) the bidder, his agent or any person acting on his
behalf, has given or agreed to give to any officer or
employee of the procuring entity or other governmental
authority any gratification in any form, or any other thing
of value, so as to unduly influence the procurement
process;
(d) the bidder, in the opinion of the procuring entity, has a
conflict of interest materially affecting fair competition.
(2) A bid shall be excluded as soon as the cause for its
exclusion is discovered.
(3) Every decision of a procuring entity to exclude a bid
shall be recorded in writing with reasons.
(4) Every such decision shall be–
(a) communicated to the concerned bidder in writing; and
(b) published on the State Public Procurement Portal.”
14. Further, Rule 55(9) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Rules, 2013 provides:
“55(9): No bid shall be rejected at the time of bid opening
except late bids, alternative bids (if not permitted), and
bids not accompanied by proof of payment or instrument
of the required price of bidding documents, processing fee
or user charges and bid security.”
15. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that
Rule 55(9) permits rejection of bids lacking mandatory
documents, while Section 25 authorizes exclusion of bids that
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8449] (7 of 7) [CW-708/2026]
materially depart from the requirements specified in the bidding
documents. The petitioner’s bid, submitted without a valid Bank
Guarantee within the stipulated time, materially departed from the
RFP conditions. The action of the respondents was, therefore, in
strict compliance with the statutory provisions and cannot be
termed arbitrary or illegal.
16. In the considered opinion of this Court, compliance with
mandatory submission requirements is a fundamental prerequisite
for consideration of any bid. Since the petitioner’s bid was
incomplete at the time of submission, the respondents were under
no obligation to permit the petitioner to make a technical
presentation. No violation of natural justice or legitimate
expectation can be inferred. Moreover, the petitioner had an
alternative statutory remedy in the form of a first appeal under
Clause 11.15(g) of the RFP and the RTPP Act, 2012, which was in
fact availed on 04.01.2026 and is pending consideration. However,
without waiting for the final outcome of the Appeal, the petitioner
has approached this Court in a hurried manner.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition, being
devoid of merit, is dismissed. The interim order dated 13.01.2026
stands vacated.
18. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
244-Divya/-
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:39:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:40:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
