Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S. Gvpr Engineering Limited- M/S Hes … vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27270]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14206/2024
URN: CW / 28734U / 2024
M/s. GVPR Engineering Limited- M/s HES Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
JV., Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sridhar Reddy, Office
At 8-2-293/82/A, Plot No. 739-A, Road No. 37, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad 33, Telangana, India
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Secretary, Public And Health Engineering Department,
Main Secretariat Building, Jaipur Rajasthan
3. Addl. Chief Engineer, Project, Public Health And
Engineering Department, Project Division Bharatpur.
4. SPML-JWL JV, Through Its Authorised Signatory Jai
Prakash Gupta S/o Dean Dayal Gupta, Having Its Place Of
Business At Jindal ITF Centre, 28 Shvaji Marg, New Delhi-
110015
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Adhiraj Modi,
Mr. Rakshit Jaimini,
Mr. Daksh Pareek assisted by
Mr. Arjun Singh,
Mr. Ashish Kabra,
Mr. Moin Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate
General assisted by
Ms. Dhriti Ladha
Ms. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate
General assisted by
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG
Ms. Chelsi Agrawal,
Mr. Rohan Mittal
Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora assisted by
Ms. Varuni Agrawal,
Mr. Manish Lakhawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (2 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
Reportable
Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 29.06.2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved 29.06.2026
Whether the full judgment or only the operative Full Judgment
part is pronounced
Date of pronouncement 17.07.2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and
be further pleased:
(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 29.06.2024
passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, Projects,
Public Health and Engineering Department, Project
Division Bharatpur declaring the petitioner non-
responsive.
(ii)To declare the petitioners bid as responsive/eligible
for the above stated Tender and for a direction to
respondents to receive and consider the Petitioners
Bid and act accordingly.
(iii) To declare the constitution of First Appellate
Authority and Second Appellate Authority bad in the
eyes of law.
(iv) Any other order which the court deems fit in
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience."
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, vide application
No.1/2026 did not press clause No. (iii) of the prayer of the writ
petition. Accordingly, this Court, considering the said application,
disposed of the same by order dated 29.06.2026. Therefore, now
the writ petition is being considered for prayer Nos. (i),(ii) and(iv).
3. The factual matrix of the writ petition is a Notice Inviting
Bids (hereinafter referred to as "NIB") no. 10/2023-24 was floated
by PHED department of State of Rajasthan presently being
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for "Work of EMI at existing intake well
act Chamber River, Raw Water Pipe Line from intake to RWR-1 and
RWR-2 at Dholpur, Main Raw Water Pumping Stations at RWR-1
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (3 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
and RWR-2, Water Treatment Plant 135 MLD near RWR-2 and 5.0
MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station, Treatment Plant 5.0
MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station, CDS, VDS and Rising
Mains and FHTC for Dholpur and Saipau Block including allied
works including allied works (Package-01A)."
4. The date for downloading the bid was fixed as 16.09.2023 to
19.10.2023. Online submission time was from 16.09.2023 to
19.10.2023. Deposit of original document date was upto 1:00 PM
on 20.10.2023. Date of opening of technical bid was 20.10.2023
at 03:00 PM.
5. The present petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 and two
other companies namely M/S Megha Engineering and
Infrastructure Private Limited and M/S NCC Limited also submitted
there bids.
6. Vide order dated 29.06.2024 office of the Additional Chief
Engineer (Project) PHED, Bharatpur, the following bidders were
declared responsive/non-responsive for opening of financial bids:
S.No. Name of Firm Remark
1 M/s Megha Engineering and Responsive
Infrastructures Limited
2 M/s JWIL Infra Limited Responsive
(JV of M/s SPML Infra Ltd. and M/s JWIL
Infra Ltd.)
3 M/s NCC Limited Responsive
4 M/s GVPR Engineers Limited (JV of M/s Non-responsive, as the
GVPR Engineers Limited and M/s HES bidder does not meet
Infra Pvt. Ltd. financial criteria (PQ
criteria) with regard to
credit limit requirement.
7. The petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive vide order
dated 29.06.2024 on the ground that it did not satisfy the
financial criteria (PQ Criteria), as the FIN-2 certificate submitted
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (4 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
by the petitioner was not in conformity with the requirements of
the tender document. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the
said decision before the learned First Appellate Authority as per
the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "RTPP Act,
2012"), which rejected the petitioner's appeal. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner preferred a second appeal, which was also
dismissed. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed. Till the
filing of the present writ petition, no work order had been issued.
8. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, this Court directed that all
further actions, including the issuance of the Letter of Intent
(hereinafter referred to as "LOI"), shall remain subject to the final
outcome of the present writ petition. The work order dated
03.09.2025 also specifically records that it has been issued
subject to the final decision of this Court in the present writ
petition in terms of the order dated 16.10.2024.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as
per the bidding document in cases where a bidder participates
through a joint venture, the requirement regarding the credit limit
reads as under:
No. Factor Requirement Requireme Single All parties Each One Submiss
nt in terms Entity combined member member ion
of value require
for ments
fulfillment
of
eligibility
1.3 Credit Credit Limit Rs. 192.65 Must Must Must Lead Letter
Limit (Fund based Crore meet meet meet at partner from
and non fund require requirem least must Banks
based ment ent 10% of meet at Form
Unutilized and the least 51% FIN 2
available with require of the
the Bidder ment requireme
shall not be nt
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (5 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
less than 15%
of the
estimated
cost of work
9.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
purpose of prescribing the credit limit was to ensure that in the
event the work order is awarded to the successful bidder, such
bidder would have sufficient finances to execute the work and
complete the project within the stipulated time.
9.2 Learned counsel further submitted that under the tender
conditions, each member of the joint venture was required to
satisfy at least 10% of the prescribed financial requirement,
whereas the lead partner was required to satisfy at least 51%
thereof. He also submitted that considering the estimated project
cost of Rs.1,284.30/-Crores, the prescribed credit limit
requirement worked out to 15% thereof, i.e., Rs.192.65/- Crores.
9.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that M/s GVPR Engineering Limited being the lead partner fulfilled
the entire prescribed credit limit requirement of more than
Rs.192.65/- Crores and in fact, had an available credit limit of
Rs.384.85/- Crores as is evident from Annexure-R/5. He also
submitted that the other joint venture partner; namely HES Infra
Pvt. Ltd. was independently required to satisfy only 10% of the
prescribed credit limit requirement. In this regard, the certificate
issued by the Bank of India dated 21.05.2024 clearly certified the
availability of the requisite credit facility.
9.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that
although the said certificate was not strictly in the prescribed FIN-
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (6 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
2 format, its contents sufficiently established that HES Infra Pvt.
Ltd. had an available credit limit of Rs.20/-Crores, thereby
fulfilling the minimum requirement prescribed under the tender
conditions.
9.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by
misconstruing the contents of the certificate and merely because it
was not in the exact FIN-2 format, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 without
affording any opportunity to the petitioner to furnish clarification,
wrongly concluded that the petitioner did not possess the requisite
available credit limit as on the relevant date. Consequently, the
petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive.
9.6 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the alleged defect was purely curable in nature and could
have been rectified in accordance with the provisions of the RTPP
Act, 2012 and Rule 13 of the Rules of the 2013. He further
submitted that the entire tender process demonstrates that
respondent No. 4 was declared the successful bidder despite
serious deficiencies in its bid. He also submitted that at the stage
of issuance of the LOI, the other bidders who had initially been
declared responsive had failed to extend the validity of their bids,
leaving respondent No. 4 as the sole remaining bidder. Despite
this, and in violation of the provisions of the RTPP Act, 2012 and
Rule 13 of the Rules of 2013, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 proceeded to
issue the LOI in favour of respondent No. 4 in an arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.
9.7 He further submitted that the LOI was thus issued despite
the pendency of the present writ petition and the order passed by
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (7 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
this Court and was made subject to the out come of the writ
petition.
9.8 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
the FIN-3 document submitted by respondent No. 4 was not in
conformity with the bidding document. He further submitted that
the Evaluation Committee, in its observations dated 25.04.2024,
specifically recorded the deficiencies in respondent No. 4, FIN-3
document.
9.9 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by
adopting discriminatory practices and applying different standards,
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 permitted respondent No. 4 to correct his
FIN-3, whereas the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity at
any point of time to clarify his FIN-2.
9.10 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that despite all these facts having come on record, respondent
Nos. 2 & 3, instead of affording the petitioner an opportunity,
proceeded to justify the estimated cost by the committee which
was excessively high.
9.11 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
discrimination on the part of the Bidding Authority and the State is
writ large. The petitioner' joint venture was in a summary manner,
declared non-responsive without there being any material
deviation that could have been corrected without affecting the
substance of the bid. There is a clear violation of the provisions of
the RTPP Act, 2012 and the Rules of 2013.
9.12 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew attention
of this Court towards the Committee Meeting (Annexure-1) on
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (8 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
record, which has been filed along with the second stay
application. He submitted that there were material deficiencies in
the bidding documents of respondent No. 4 (JWIL). The said
deficiencies were serious and substantial in nature and were, in
fact, incurable. Despite this, respondent No. 4 was granted
sufficient opportunity to rectify the deficiencies and was also
permitted to correct his FIN-3 after clarifications had been sought
by the procuring authority.
9.13 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the approach adopted by the Bidding Authority was contrary
to the principles of transparency and fairness. The price bid
submitted by respondent No. 4 was substantially higher than the
estimated project cost of Rs.1284.30/- Crores. He further
submitted that in order to confer an undue advantage upon
respondent No. 4, the estimated cost was sought to be justified
not on the basis of the PHED BSR, 2021 as stipulated in the NIB,
but on the basis of the revised PHED BSR, 2023 and PWD BSR,
2022. He further submitted that, the bid submitted by respondent
No. 4 was approximately 15% higher than the NIB cost.
9.14 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that even as late as 09.06.2025, the tender had not been finalized
and the pre-qualification (PQ) criteria of respondent No. 4 was still
under consideration, whereas the petitioner had already been
declared non-responsive vide order dated 29.06.2024. He
submitted that although two other bidders were declared
responsive, they were not considered as they failed to extend the
validity of their bids. Consequently, respondent No. 4 remained
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (9 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
the sole bidder, despite its bid being approximately 15% higher
than the NIB cost.
9.15 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that in clear violation of the provisions of the RTPP Act, 2012, the
Rules of 2013, and the bidding documents, the authorities issued
the LOI in favour of respondent No. 4 during the pendency of the
present writ petition, notwithstanding the order of this Court that
the LOI would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ
petition.
9.16 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that had
the procuring authority adopted the same liberal approach
towards the petitioner as it did in the case of respondent No. 4,
the State exchequer could have been saved an amount of Rs.
211/- Crores i.e. Rs.1438.3077/- Crores - Rs.1226.51/- Crores.
9.17 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew attention
of this Court towards the Rule 9, Rule 60, and Rule 61 of the
Rules of 2013 in support of his submissions. Therefore, he, prayed
that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayers as prayed
for.
10. Per contra, learned Advocate General for the State-
respondents Nos. 1 to 3 advanced his submissions and also filed
written arguments. He drew attention of this Court towards the
conditions contained in the NIB, particularly the requirement
relating to the credit limit. Further drew attention of this Court
towards Chapter-I of the bidding document, containing the
instructions to Bidders, specifically required every bidder to
carefully read and understand the instructions, forms, terms and
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (10 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
conditions governing the tender process. He further submitted
that the bidding documents clearly stipulated that all information
was required to be furnished strictly in the prescribed format.
10.1 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 further drew attention of this Court towards the terms and
conditions governing the preparation of bids as well as the
provisions relating to the "Preliminary Examination of Bids"
contained in the NIB. He further submitted that the last date for
submission of bids, which was originally prescribed, was extended
up to 21.05.2024 and the petitioner submitted its bid on the said
extended last date. The technical bids were opened on
22.05.2024.
10.2 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 also referred to the various stages of the bid evaluation
process, namely, preliminary examination, substantial
responsiveness evaluation, pre-qualification evaluation and
thereafter, financial evaluation. It was fairly admitted that on
22.05.2024, technical bids of all the four participating bidders
were opened.
10.3 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the first meeting of the Bid Evaluation
Committee was held on 25.06.2024 and minutes were drawn,
wherein the petitioners' bid was found not to satisfy the prescribed
financial eligibility criteria as the FIN-2 which has been provided
by the petitioner did not specifically disclose the total credit limit
available as well as the unutilized credit limit available within three
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (11 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
months from the date of opening of the pre-qualification bid, as
required under the bidding conditions.
10.4 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the certificate issued by the Union Bank of
India in favour of the lead partner, M/s GVPR was found to be in
conformity with the tender requirements. However, the certificate
dated 21.05.2024 issued by the Bank of India in favour of M/s
HES Infra Ltd. did not satisfy the prescribed conditions.
Consequently, the petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive
and the petitioner was informed accordingly vide order dated
29.06.2024.
10.5 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the petitioner challenged the order dated
29.06.2024 by filing a first appeal before the learned First
Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed vide order dated
12.07.2024, affirming the decision of the Bid Evaluation
Committee. The petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal
before the learned Second Appellate Authority, which was also
dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2024.
10.6 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that thereafter, on 03.09.2025, the procuring entity
issued the work order in favour of respondent No. 4 and a formal
contract was also executed with respondent No. 4.
10.7 Learned Advocate General in written submissions have raised
preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present
writ petition. It was argued that the writ petition has been filed by
a Joint Venture, which is not a legal entity and therefore, the writ
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (12 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
petition itself is not maintainable. He further submitted that the
petitioner is an unregistered partnership firm and, therefore, the
writ petition is also barred in view of the provisions of Section 69
of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act of 1932").
10.8 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the petitioner has challenged only the order
dated 29.06.2024 and has failed to challenge the subsequent
orders passed by the learned First Appellate Authority dated
12.07.2024 and the learned Second Appellate Authority dated
21.08.2024. Therefore, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, the
original order stood merged with the appellate orders and, in the
absence of any challenge thereto, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
10.9 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the petitioner has made incorrect pleadings by
alleging that the order dated 21.08.2024 is an order, whereas in
fact it was merely the English translated version of the original
order passed in Hindi. He further submitted that this material fact
has neither been disclosed in the pleadings nor in the supporting
affidavit, thereby violating the Rule 22 of the Rajasthan High Court
Rules, 1952 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
10.10 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that no relief can be granted in respect of an order
which has not been specifically challenged. Since the petitioner
has not amended the writ petition to challenge the subsequent
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (13 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
appellate orders, no relief can be granted against those orders in
the present proceedings.
10.11 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that a pure question of law can be raised at any
stage of the proceedings and that the preliminary objections
relating to the maintainability of the writ petition deserve to be
decided at the threshold.
10.12 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is
squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Project Director,
RUID & Others v. M/s Rama Infra & Others (D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 804/2018) decided on 29.03.2019. He further
submitted that the scope of judicial review in contractual and
tender matters is extremely limited and that on the date of
submission of the bid, the petitioner was admittedly ineligible. The
respondents were under no statutory obligation to seek any
clarification or negotiate with a bidder whose bid had been found
to be non-responsive.
10.13 Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 drew attention of this Court towards Section 5 & 7 of the Act,
2012 and Rule 59, 60 and 61 of the Rules of 2013.
10.14 Lastly, he further submitted that while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot travel beyond the statutory framework governing the
tender process. He further submitted that equitable considerations
cannot override the express provisions of the statute or the terms
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (14 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
and conditions of the tender document. Therefore, he prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 supported the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General. In
addition thereto, he submitted that respondent No. 4 has filed an
application under Section 379 of BNSS, 2023 alleging that the
petitioner has placed on record a fabricated and forged document,
namely, the purported order of the learned Second Appellate
Authority.
11.1 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 argued that the
writ petition has, in any case, become infructuous inasmuch as the
LOI has already been issued, the contract has been awarded and
executed, and the petitioner has failed to suitably amend the writ
petition so as to challenge the subsequent developments.
11.2 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submited that
pursuant to the award of the contract, respondent No. 4 has
mobilized substantial machinery, manpower, financial resources
and furnished the requisite bank guarantees. A significant portion
of the work has already been executed and an investment of
crores has been made. He further submitted that any interference
at this stage would not only seriously prejudice the successful
bidder but would also adversely affect the execution of a Major
Public Water Supply Project undertaken in public interest.
11.3 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 drew attention of
this Court towards Section 2(34) of the RTPP Act, 2012 defining a
"responsive bid", as well as Section 60(4) of the said Act. He also
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (15 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
referred to Clauses 1.12 & 11.2 read with Clauses 5.1, 20.1 and
21.1 of the bidding documents.
11.4 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 argued that FIN-2
certificate furnished by the petitioner's Joint Venture partner, M/s
HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., did not disclose the availability of the requisite
credit limit as on the date of submission of the bid, which
constituted a breach of the mandatory conditions of the tender
document. Consequently, the petitioner's bid was rightly declared
non-responsive.
11.5 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further argued that
the petitioner has filed a false affidavit before this Court and,
therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
11.6 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further submitted
that the original order dated 29.06.2024 stood merged with the
appellate orders dated 12.07.2024 and 21.08.2024. Since the
petitioner has not challenged the subsequent appellate orders, the
present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.
11.7 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further argued that
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, this Court ought not to interfere in matters relating to
tender evaluation except in cases of arbitrariness, malafides or
violation of statutory provisions, none of which is made out in the
present case.
11.8 Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 pointed out that as on
March, 2026, works valuing approximately Rs.188.20/-Crores
(inclusive of GST) had already been completed and further
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (16 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
purchase orders worth approximately Rs.433/-Crores had also
been issued. Therefore, he submitted that the deficiency in the
FIN-2 certificate furnished by the petitioner's Joint Venture was of
such a fundamental nature that it could neither be clarified nor
rectified after submission of the bid. Accordingly, the decision of
the Bid Evaluation Committee in declaring the petitioner's bid non-
responsive was fully justified. Therefore, he prayed that the writ
petition be dismissed.
12. In rejoinder the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the filing of the English translated copy of the
order dated 21.08.2024 of the learned Second Appellate Authority,
instead of the original Hindi version, was only a bonafide
procedural irregularity. The translation was a true and correct
translation generated through Google Lens, the original Hindi
order has since been placed on record by both the respondents
and the petitioner, and its authenticity was never disputed in the
reply; therefore, the objection raised during arguments is merely
an afterthought.
12.1 Learned counsel in rejoinder further submitted that the
objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition at the stage
of arguments under Section 69 of the Act of 1932 is misconceived
and beyond the pleadings. It was submitted that the petitioner
participated in the tender as a Joint Venture, which was expressly
permissible under the tender conditions and accepted by the
respondents throughout the tender process. Section 69 of the Act
of 1932 applies only to suits for enforcement of contractual rights
and has no application to proceedings under Article 226 of the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (17 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
Constitution. It was also submitted that the writ petition
specifically challenges the legality of the orders passed by the
procuring authorities under the RTPP Act, 2012 and that the
constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be curtailed by
technical objections regarding the form of challenge.
12.2 Learned Senior Counsel also opposed the respondents'
application under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS,
2023, contending that no case of forgery, falsehood or perjury is
made out and that the application is frivolous, malafide and
intended only to prejudice the petitioner during the pendency of
the writ petition.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgments: -
(i) Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad
Singh reported in (2006) 1 SCC 75.
(ii) Umesh Goyal vs H.P. Coop. Group Housing Society
Ltd. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 313.
(iii) State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR
1958 SC 86.
(iv) Shivani Chaurasia vs State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2024) 0 Supreme (All) 819.
(v) Puran Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (1996)
2 SCC 205.
(vi) Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana reported
in (1985) 3 SCC 267.
(vii) Poddar Steel Corpn. Vs. Ganesh Engineering
Works reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273.
(viii) CAG vs. K.S. Jagannathan reported in (1986) 2
SCC 679,
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (18 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(ix) Assn of Registration Plates vs. Union of India
reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
(x) Banshidhar Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273.
(xi) Shanigrila Food Products Ltd. vs. LIC reported in
(1996) 5 SCC 54.
(xii) Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. regd.
Partnership Firm Beawar (Raj.) reported in (2007) 10
SCC 82.
(xiii) State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in
(2011) 3 SCC 436.
(xiv) State of Punjab vs. Bandeep Singh reported in
(2016) 1 SCC 724.
(xv) Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and another vs. K.S. Jagannathan
and another reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679.
(xvi) Uttam Chand Jain vs. Anil Jain, in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 8541/2025 decided on 26.02.2026.
(xvii) M/s. Geo Miller Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 RAJ 130.
(xviii) The Porject Director and others vs. M/s. Ramky
Infrastructure Ltd., in D.B. Special Appela (Writ)
804/2018 and connected matters.
14. Learned Advocate General for the State-respondents Nos. 1
to 3 placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, (Law) BOR
(Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s Kelukutty reported in
(1985) 4 SCC 35.
(ii) Ethiopian Artilines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo
reported in (2011) 8 SCC 539.
(iii) Shanti vs. T.D. Vishwanathan & Anr. reported in
(2019) 11 SCC 419.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (19 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(iv) State of Orissa & Anr. vs Mamta Mohanty reported
in (2011) 3 SCC 436.
(v) Allahabad University vs. Geetanjali Tiwari
(Pandey) & Ors. reported in (2024) 20 SCC 23.
(vi) ADM (City) Agra vs. Prabhakar Chaturvedi & Anr.
reported in (1996) 2 SCC 12.
(vii) State of W.B. & Anr. vs. West Bengal
Registration Copywriters Ass. & Anr. reported in
(2009) 14 SCC 132.
(viii) Yeshwant Deorao vs. Walchand Ramchand
reported in AIR 1951 SC 16.
(ix) DGP, CRPF vs. P.M. Ramalingam reported in
(2009) 1 SCC 193.
(x) Union of India vs. Adani Exports reported in
(2002) 1 SCC 567.
(xi) Project Director, RUIDP & Ors. vs. M/s Ramky
Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. (DBSAW o. 804/2018)
decided on 29.03.2019.
(xii) Silppi Construction Contractors vs. Union of
India & Anr. reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489.
(xiii) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216.
(xiv) Meerut Development Authority vs. Association
of Management Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171.
(xv) N.G. Projects Ltd. vs. M.s Vinod Kumar Jain &
Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127.
(xvi) TATA Motors Ltd. vs. The Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) &
Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3887 of 2023).
(xvii) KSRTC vs. Ashrafulla Khan & Ors. reported in
(2002) 2 SCC 560.
(xviii) Council of ISCE vs. Isha Mittal & Anr. reported
in (2000) 7 SCC 521.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 placed reliance on
the following judgments:-
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (20 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(i) Madras High Court Advocates' Association vs. Dr.
A.S. Anand, Hon'ble The CJI and anothers reported in
(2001) 3 SCC 19.
(ii) Aman Singh vs Union of India reported in (2011) 7
SCC 69.
(iii) Balbir Singh and Anr. vs. Baldev Singh (dead)
through LRs reported in (2025) 3 SCC 543.
(iv) Stteag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. GSPC
Pipavav Power Company Ltd. (GPPC) and others
reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 478.
(v) Rishikesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar reported
in 2019 SCC Online Pat 4016.
(vi) N.G. Projects Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 127.
(vii) Jagdish Mandal vs State of Orissa reported in
(2007) 14 SCC 517.
(viii) Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Supply and
Transport Undertaking reported in (2023) 19 SCC 1.
(ix) Steag Energy Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. GSPC
Pipavav Power Company Ltd. (GSPC) and others
reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 478.
(x) N.G. Projects Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 127.
(xi) Afcons InfrastructureLtd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. and Anothers reported in (2016) 16
SCC 818.
(xii) Centsal Coalfields Ltd. and anothers vs. SLL-SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors. reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 622.
(xiii) W.B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel
Engineering Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2001) 2
SCC 451.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (21 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(xiv) Sorath Builders vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd.
and another reported in (2009) 11 SCC 9.
(xv) Ram Gajadhar Nishad vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 486.
(xvi) State of Jharkhand and others vs. CWE-SOMA
Consortium reported in (2016) 14 SCC 172.
(xvii) Giepl-Hsepl JV vs The Additional Chief Engineer
and others in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 8466/2018.
(xviii) Dilip Buildcon Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and
others reported in MANU/RH/1612/2019.
16. Heard all the parties and perused the material available on
record.
17. Before adverting to the writ petition on merits, this Court
deems it appropriate to first consider certain objections raised
by the respondents, although such objections were not
specifically pleaded in their reply.
18. One of the principal objections jointly raised by all the
respondents is that the petitioner has not challenged the
subsequent developments that occurred during the pendency of
the present writ petition, namely, the issuance of the LOI, the
work order, the execution of the agreement, and the substantial
progress of the work. It was further contended that respondent
No. 4 has made substantial investments pursuant thereto, and
therefore, this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition at
this stage.
18.1 This Court finds that immediately after the impugned order
dated 29.06.2024 was passed, the petitioner approached the
competent authorities for redressal of its grievances. Thereafter,
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (22 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
the present writ petition was instituted on 29.08.2024. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, vide an interim order dated
16.10.2024, passed the following directions:
"1. It has been stated that petitioner in joint venture
(JV) with partner-M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., participated in
NIB No.10/2023-2024 and in the preliminary
examination, the petitioner's bid was passed by the Bid
Evaluation Committee. However, on the next stage of
evaluation i.e. a substantial evaluation, petitioner's bid
was declared non-responsive with the remark "as bidder
does not meet the financial criteria (PQ criteria) with
regard to credit limit requirement" vide office order
dated 29.06.2024 released from the Office of Additional
Chief Engineer, (Project), Public Health And Engineering
Department, Project Division Bharatpur.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner argued that deficiency in respect of credit
limit requirement of petitioner has been observed in
respect of joint venture (JV) partner-M/s HES Infra Pvt.
Ltd. and the certificate dated 21.05.2024 issued by the
Bank of India has not been accepted merely for
technical reason that same is not issued in form of
prescribed and proper format.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner vehemently
argued that such defect is curable and the procuring
authority in exercise of its powers with the aid of Rule
59, 60 and 61 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public
Procurement Rules, 2013 could have asked to submit a
fresh certificate in proper format, since same does not
amount to material deviation, rather pertains to
clarification of the conditions of tendered document.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that declaring the
petitioner's bid as non-responsive on such technical
ground is violative to the aim and object of Rajasthan
Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012. The First
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (23 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority,
being the superior officers of the respondent-
department, has dismissed the appeals filed by the
petitioner in a mechanical manner, hence, the order
dated 29.06.2024 be quashed and petitioner be held
responsive/eligible to participate in the financial bid.
5. Learned Senior Counsel argued that since the
decision making process of respondent-authorities
suffers from infirmity as much as the order impugned
suffers from vice of arbitrariness and stands in clear-cut
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, in such peculiar facts and circumstances, the
writ jurisdiction has been invoked against the
arbitrariness of the respondents-authorities in ousting
the petitioner to participate in financial bid, which
resulted against the public interest.
6. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.4 who has
been impleaded as party being another participant to
NIB and being declared as L-1 bidder, argued that after
declaring the petitioner as non-responsive bidder vide
order dated 29.06.2024, the financial bid has been
opened on 04.07.2024, wherein respondent No.4 has
been declared as L-1 bidder and only Letter of Intent
(LOI) is to be issued in his favour.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4
argued that the certificate dated 21.05.2024 issued by
Bank of India in favour of M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., joint
venture partner of petitioner to participate in the bid, is
in form of an advice and a conditional certificate to
provide credit limit subject to grant of tender contract
which does not meet the requisite criteria of cash credit
limit as stipulated in Clause 1.3 of "eligibility criteria for
credit limit" of the tendered document. Hence, the bid of
petitioner has rightly been rejected.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that
since respondent No.4 has been declared as L1 bidder,
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (24 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
at this juncture no interference by the High Court in writ
jurisdiction be made in the present writ petition
pertaining to challenging the process of Government
tender.
9. Heard. Considered.
10. Let notice to respondents No.1 to 3 of writ petition
as also of stay application be issued. In addition, copy of
writ petition may be served in the Office of Additional
Advocate General, Ms. Mahi Yadav for PHED (Public
Health and Engineering Department).
11. List the matter on 05.11.2024.
12.Having considered the facts and circumstances
obtaining in the present case, it is hereby observed that
issuance of LOI in favour of respondent No.4 shall
remain subject to order(s) passed in the instant
petition."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18.2 This Court finds that, as on the date of the interim order
dated 16.10.2024, the tender evaluation process had not attained
finality. The bid of respondent No. 4 had neither attained finality
nor had respondent No. 4 been finally declared to be a responsive
bidder. The record reveals that certain queries raised by the
tendering authority remained pending consideration, and the
determination of the responsiveness of respondent No. 4 was
contingent upon the satisfactory resolution thereof. It was in these
circumstances, when the evaluation process itself remained
incomplete, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, being
satisfied that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case,
issued notice in the writ petition and directed that any LOI/Work
Order issued in favour of respondent No. 4 would remain subject
to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (25 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
18.3 It is an admitted position that none of the respondents
sought any review, modification, clarification, or vacation of the
aforesaid interim order, and the same continued to operate
throughout the pendency of the proceedings. Subsequently, the
LOI/Work Order came to be issued only on 03.09.2025, nearly
eleven months after the passing of the interim order dated
16.10.2024. Significantly, the LOI/Work Order itself expressly
records that it has been issued subject to the final outcome of the
present writ petition, thereby giving effect to and acting in
conformity with the directions contained in the interim order.
18.4 In view thereof, any rights or obligations arising from the
said LOI/Work Order are necessarily conditional and remain
subject to the final adjudication of the present writ petition.
Having accepted the interim order and consciously acted in
accordance therewith, the respondents cannot now be permitted
to contend that the subsequent issuance of the LOI/Work Order
has rendered the writ petition infructuous or has otherwise
affected its maintainability. Such a contention is inconsistent with
their own conduct and is liable to be rejected.
18.5 This Court also notes that the respondents issued the LOI
nearly 11 months after the interim order dated 16.10.2024.
During this interregnum, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had ample
opportunity to seek clarifications from the petitioner, and in fact,
queries had been raised to the respondent No. 4. However, despite
waiting for almost one year before finally declaring respondent No.
4 as responsive, the respondents failed to extend a similar
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (26 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the alleged deficiencies in
its bid.
18.6 In view of the foregoing discussion, the preliminary objection
raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition on account of subsequent developments is liable to be
rejected. The subsequent issuance of the LOI/Work Order, having
been expressly made subject to the final outcome of the present
writ petition, did not give rise to any independent or distinct cause
of action requiring the petitioner to institute a separate challenge
or amend the reliefs already sought. The validity of the
consequential actions taken by the respondents remains wholly
dependent upon the legality of the impugned tender process,
which is the principal issue under consideration in the present
proceedings.
18.7 This Court is further of the considered opinion that the
issuance of the LOI/Work Order during the pendency of the writ
petition constituted merely a consequential step undertaken in
conformity with the interim order of this Court and did not alter
the nature or scope of the controversy. Accepting the respondents'
contention would lead to the anomalous consequence of requiring
a litigant to repeatedly amend pleadings or institute fresh
proceedings upon every consequential administrative action taken
during the pendency of the litigation, notwithstanding that such
actions are expressly made subject to the final adjudication of the
Court. Such an approach would unnecessarily multiply
proceedings, undermine the principle of judicial economy, and
elevate procedural form over substantive justice. Accordingly, the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (27 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
subsequent issuance of the LOI/Work Order neither affects the
maintainability of the writ petition nor renders the present
proceedings infructuous.
18.8 This Court is further guided by the equitable principle
embodied in the Latin maxim pendente lite nihil innovetur,
meaning thereby that during the pendency of litigation, the
subject matter of the dispute should not be altered to the
prejudice of the rights of the parties awaiting adjudication by the
Court. The maxim is founded upon the broader principle that
judicial proceedings should not be rendered ineffective or
frustrated by unilateral acts undertaken while the dispute remains
sub judice. Although the respondents were not restrained from
proceeding with the tender process, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had categorically directed that any LOI/Work Order issued in
favour of respondent No. 4 would remain subject to the final
outcome of the present writ petition. The subsequent issuance of
the LOI in conformity with that order was, therefore, necessarily
provisional and incapable of conferring any absolute or
indefeasible rights upon respondent No. 4.
18.9 Accordingly, the respondents cannot contend that the
execution of the LOI or the consequential agreement has created
a fait accompli or rendered the present writ petition infructuous.
To accept such a contention would permit a party to defeat the
efficacy of pending judicial proceedings by taking consequential
administrative steps during their pendency, notwithstanding that
such steps were expressly made subject to the ultimate decision
of the Court. Such a course would not only undermine the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (28 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
authority of judicial orders but would also be contrary to the
salutary principle underlying the maxim pendente lite nihil
innovetur, which seeks to preserve the efficacy of the judicial
process until the rights of the parties are finally determined.
18.10 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the objection raised by the respondents
regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to challenge the
subsequent developments is wholly misconceived, legally
untenable, and devoid of any merit. The subsequent events
neither render the writ petition infructuous nor affect its
maintainability. The objection is accordingly rejected.
19. Another objection raised by respondent No. 4 is that the
documents annexed with the writ petition are not duly supported
by a proper affidavit and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
rejected.
19.1 This Court finds that the writ petition was filed on
29.08.2024. Significantly, no such objection was raised by any of
the respondents in their respective replies. The objection has been
raised for the first time during the course of final arguments.
19.2 Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 filed an application
under Section 379 of the BNSS, 2023 praying that a false
evidence has been filed and, therefore, seeking initiation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
19.3 This Court finds that during the hearing, it was noticed that
the order of the learned Second Appellate Authority placed on
record was not the original order. Learned Advocate General
submitted that the original order of the learned Second Appellate
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (29 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
Authority had been passed in Hindi, whereas the document
annexed with the writ petition was its English translation. Both
parties were heard at length on the issue regarding the effect of
the English translation being placed on record when the original
order was already available.
19.4 This Court has perused the record. The affidavit filed by the
petitioner in support of the documents annexed with the writ
petition, particularly at page Nos. 165 and 166, contains
paragraph 2, which reads as under:
"That the annexed document Annex.1 to are true and
exact photo copies/downloaded copies/certified copies
of their originals."
19.5 A perusal of the said affidavit reveals that when the writ
petition was initially filed, the affidavit in support of the
documents was not happily or appropriately worded. However, if
the affidavit was defective or not in the prescribed form, the same
ought to have been objected by the Registry at the time of
scrutiny. This Court finds that no such objection was ever raised
by the Registry, thereafter the writ petition came to be registered
and notices were duly issued to the respondents.
19.6 The objection has surfaced only at the stage of final
arguments. In the opinion of this Court, even assuming that the
affidavit was deficient or not in the proper format, such deficiency
would, at best, constitute a curable defect. It is well settled that
where the Court finds that where an affidavit supporting annexed
documents is incomplete or not in the prescribed format, the
defect can always be rectified by permitting the filing of a proper
affidavit.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (30 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
19.7 The record further reveals that Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner has, in fact, filed a duly corrected affidavit on
26.05.2026, wherein paragraph No.2 specifically states as under:
"2. THAT the Annexure-1 to 6 and 8 to the writ
petition are true and correct photocopy of the original.
Annexure-7 is collectively the true and correct
photocopy of the memo of second appeal and the
English translation of the order dated 21.08.2024 of
the second appellate authority, as delivered by the
Google Lens and is actual translation of the original
order in Hindi language."
19.8 A bare perusal of the affidavits referred to in paragraph 19.4
reveals that no affidavit was filed with respect to the annexure
generated through Google Lens, i.e., the order of the learned
Second Appellate Authority. The affidavit was filed only in respect
of Annexure-1.
19.9 This Court further finds that the corrected affidavit, as
referred to in paragraph 19.7 of this order, has been filed, which
clearly demonstrates that Annexure-7 consisted of the photocopy
of the memo of the second appeal along with the English
translation of the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned
Second Appellate Authority.
19.10 In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the
contention advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 4
seeking initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 379 of the
BNSS, 2023. the omission in original affidavit was a curable
procedural defect, which has since been rectified by filing the
corrected affidavit. No material has been placed on record to
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (31 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
establish any deliberate falsehood or intention to mislead the
Court.
19.11 Consequently, the objection raised by respondent No. 4 is
devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
20. Learned counsel for the respondents have also raised a
preliminary objection that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground that although the petitioner has challenged the
original order dated 29.06.2024, the orders passed by the learned
First Appellate Authority and the learned Second Appellate
Authority have not been assailed. It was submitted that the
doctrine of merger would apply and therefore, in the absence of a
challenge to the appellate orders, the writ petition is not
maintainable.
20.1 This Court has considered the aforesaid objection and finds
no merit therein. The doctrine of merger is primarily applicable in
cases where a decree or order of a subordinate Court merges into
the decree or order passed by the superior forum. The object of
the doctrine is to determine the limitation for execution of a
decree and to identify the operative decree or order for purposes
of limitation. The said doctrine cannot be mechanically extended
to every administrative or quasi-judicial proceeding.
20.2 In the present case, the impugned action whereby the
petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive is contained in the
order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Procuring Entity. Although
the petitioner thereafter availed the statutory remedies before the
learned First Appellate Authority and the learned Second Appellate
Authority under the provisions of the RTPP Act, 2012, the original
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (32 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
decision declaring the petitioner's bid as non-responsive does not
cease to exist nor does it merge in the appellate orders in the
manner suggested by the respondents.
20.3 While exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is required to
examine the legality, validity and propriety of the original
administrative action. If the Court finds that the order dated
29.06.2024 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Rule, or
the terms and conditions of the NIB, it is well within its jurisdiction
to interfere with the said order. Merely because the appellate
orders have not been specifically challenged would not, by itself,
render the writ petition non-maintainable by invoking the doctrine
of merger.
20.4 The doctrine of merger, in the facts of the present case,
cannot be applied so as to defeat the exercise of the constitutional
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
availability and exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedies do
not denude this Court of its power to examine the legality of the
original administrative order.
20.5 Therefore, this preliminary objection raised by the
respondents is devoid of merit and deserves to be, and is hereby,
rejected.
20.6 In reaching the above conclusion this court relies on a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.
v. Mohd. Nooh (Supra), wherein it was held that the doctrine of
merger does not have universal application and an original order
continues to remain operative unless modified or set aside in
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (33 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
appeal or revision. The mere dismissal of an appeal or revision
does not obliterate or supersede the original order, except for
limited purposes such as computation of limitation. The relevant
extracts from the aforesaid judgment, having a bearing on the
controversy involved in the present case, are reproduced
hereinbelow:
"19. There appear to be two answers to the foregoing
contention. As we have already observed an order of
dismissal passed on a departmental enquiry by an officer
in the department and an order passed by another
officer next higher in rank dismissing an appeal
therefrom and an order rejecting an application for
revision by the head of the department can hardly be
equated with any propriety with decrees made in a civil
suit under the Code of Civil Procedure by the court of
first instance and the decree dismissing the appeal
therefrom by an appeal court and the order dismissing
the revision petition by a yet higher court, as has been
sought to be done by the High Court in this case,
because the departmental tribunals of the first instance
or on appeal or revision are not regular courts manned
by persons trained in law although they may have the
trappings of the courts of law. The danger of so doing is
evident from what has happened in the very case now
before us.
20. In the next place, while it is true that a decree of a
court of first instance may be said to merge in the
decree passed on appeal therefrom or even in the order
passed in revision, it does so only for certain purposes,
namely, for the purposes of computing the period of
limitation for execution of the decree as in Batuk Nath v.
Munni Dei [Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei, 1914 SCC OnLine
PC 14 : (1913-14) 41 IA 104] , or for computing the
period of limitation for an application for final decree in a
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (34 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
mortgage suit as in Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh
[Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh, 1926 SCC OnLine PC
28 : (1925-26) 53 IA 197] . But, as pointed out by Sir
Lawrence Jenkins in delivering the judgment of the Privy
Council in Juscurn Boid v. Pirthichand Lal [Juscurn Boid
v. Pirthichand Lal, 1918 SCC OnLine PC 85 : (1918-19)
46 IA 52 : ILR (1919) 46 Cal 670 at pp. 678-679] ,
whatever be the theory under other systems of law,
under the Indian law and procedure an original decree is
not suspended by the presentation of an appeal nor is its
operation interrupted where the decree on appeal is
merely one of dismissal. There is nothing in the Indian
law to warrant the suggestion that the decree or order of
the court or tribunal of the first instance becomes final
only on the termination of all proceedings by way of
appeal or revision. The filing of the appeal or revision
may put the decree or order in jeopardy but until it is
reversed or modified it remains effective. In that view of
the matter the original order of dismissal passed on 20-
4-1948 was not suspended by the presentation of appeal
by the respondent nor was its operation interrupted
when the Deputy Inspector General of Police simply
dismissed the appeal from that order or the Inspector
General simply dismissed the application for revision.
The original order of dismissal, if there were no inherent
infirmities in it, was operative on its own strength and it
did not gain any greater efficacy from the subsequent
orders of dismissal of the appeal or the revision except
for the specific purposes hereinbefore mentioned. That
order of dismissal having been passed before the
Constitution and rights having accrued to the appellant
State and liabilities having attached to the respondent
before the Constitution came into force, the subsequent
conferment of jurisdiction and powers on the High Court
can have no retrospective operation on such rights and
liabilities. Even if the order of dismissal of the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (35 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
respondent was a nullity on the ground that it was
passed by disregarding the rules of natural justice, the
High Court could not properly be asked to exercise its
newly acquired jurisdiction and powers under Article 226
to correct errors, irregularities or illegalities committed
by the inferior departmental tribunal before the
commencement of the Constitution, for then there will
be no limit to its going backward and that will certainly
amount to giving the provisions of Article 226 a
retroactive operation. This aspect of the matter does not
appear to have been pressed in the High Court or
adverted to by it. It is only on this ground that we are
constrained, not without regret, to accept this appeal."
21. Another objection raised by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is with
regard to the fact that the writ petition is not maintainable as
being barred by Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932. Learned counsel
for respondent No. 4 submitted that a reading of the Joint Venture
agreement executed between the petitioner and M/s HES Infra
Pvt. Ltd. reveals that it provides for sharing of profits and,
therefore, answers the definition of a "partnership" under the Act
of 1932. It is contended that since the alleged partnership firm is
not registered, the present writ petition is barred under Section
69(2) of the Act of 1932 and is, therefore, not maintainable.
21.1 At the outset, it is noticed that no such objection was raised
by any of the respondents in their written reply. The said
contention has been raised for the first time during the course of
final arguments.
21.2 This Court further finds that the NIB itself specifically
contemplated participation by Joint Ventures and required only
that the constituent members execute a Joint Venture agreement
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (36 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
before participating in the bidding process. At no stage does the
NIB stipulate that such Joint Venture agreement must necessarily
constitute a registered partnership firm under the Act of 1932.
Had such a condition been intended, the procuring entity would
have expressly incorporated the same as an essential eligibility
condition. No such requirement finds place in the bidding
documents.
21.3 It is also pertinent to note that respondent No. 4 has not
placed on record its any Joint Venture agreement to demonstrate
that it had constituted a registered partnership firm before
participating in the bidding process. Learned Advocate General has
failed to produce any document or material to establish that
respondent No. 4, namely SPML-JWIL JV, was constituted as a
registered partnership firm or that registration under the Act of
1932 was treated as a mandatory requirement under the tender
conditions.
21.4 On the contrary, the agreement executed by the State-
respondents with respondent No. 4 clearly reflects that the
contract has been awarded to the Joint Venture itself and not to
any registered partnership firm. This itself demonstrates that
registration under the RTPP Act, 2012 was never treated as a
condition precedent for participation in the bidding process.
21.5 Even otherwise, Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 has a
limited application. The said provision bars the institution of a suit
to enforce a right arising out of a contract by or on behalf of an
unregistered partnership firm. The present proceedings are not in
the nature of a civil suit but are proceedings under Article 226 of
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (37 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court. The statutory bar contained in Section
69(2) of the Act of 1932 is, therefore, not attracted to the present
proceedings. Section 69 of the Act of 1932 reads as under:
"69. Effect of non-registration.--
(1)No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or
conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any court by
or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm
against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have
been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered
and the person suing is or has been shown in the
Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2)No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract
shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm
against any third party unless the firm is registered and
the persons suing are or have been shown in the
Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
(3)The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall
apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to
enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not
affect,--
(a)the enforcement of any right to sue for the
dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved
firm, or any right or power to realise the property
of a dissolved firm, or
(b)the powers of an official assignee, receiver or
Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act,
1909 (3 of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act,
1920 (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an
insolvent partner.
(4)This section shall not apply,--
(a)to firms or to partners in firms which have no
place of business in the territories to which this Act
extends, or whose places of business in the said
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (38 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
territories, are situated in areas to which, by
notification under section 56, this Chapter does not
apply, or
(b)to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one
hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-
towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the
Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (5 of
1882), or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a
kind specified in the Second Schedule to the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of
1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other
proceeding incidental to or arising from any such
suit or claim."
21.6 A bare reading of Section 69 of the Act of 1932 makes it
clear that the said provision is applicable only to suits arising out
of a contract. In other words, it bars the institution of a suit by or
on behalf of a partnership firm against a third party unless the
partnership firm is duly registered.
21.7 In the opinion of this Court, the said provision cannot be
applied to the present writ petition for more than one reason.
21.8 Firstly, the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, never prescribed in
the NIB that a joint venture was required to be registered as a
partnership firm. The only condition stipulated in the NIB was that
the parties should execute a valid joint venture agreement for
carrying out the work jointly.
21.9 Secondly, the learned Advocate General has failed to place on
record any document to demonstrate that, in the case of a joint
venture agreement, registration of the joint venture as a
partnership firm was a mandatory requirement. Consequently, this
Court finds that the said contention is nothing but an afterthought
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (39 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
on the part of the State-respondent Nos. 1 to3. Accordingly, the
argument deserves to be rejected.
21.10 The view of this court is further fortified by the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Goel
(Supra). The Apex Court held that the bar under Section 69(3) of
the Act of 1932 applies only where the proceedings are
intrinsically connected with a suit instituted in a Court by an
unregistered firm or its partner. It further clarified that the
expression "other proceedings" is confined to proceedings arising
out of or incidental to such suits, and does not extend to
independent proceedings. The relevant observations and principles
enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, which are germane to the
adjudication of the present controversy, are reproduced
hereinbelow:
"14. As far as the construction of the said sub-section
(3) of Section 69 is concerned, we are able to discern
the above legal position without any scope of
ambiguity. To be more precise, the condition precedent
for the operation of ban under sub-section (3) is that
the launching of a suit in a court of law should be
present and it should be by an unregistered firm or by a
person claiming to be partner of an unregistered firm
either to a claim for set-off in the said suit or any other
proceedings intrinsically connected with the said suit.
15. In the event of the above ingredients set out under
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) being fulfilled then and
then alone the ban prescribed against an unregistered
firm under Sections 69(1), (2) and (3) would operate
and not otherwise.
16. Keeping the above outcome of the legal position
that can be derived from a reading of sub-sections (1),
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (40 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(2) and (3) of Section 69 in mind we can draw further
conclusions by making specific reference to clauses (a)
and (b) of sub-section (3) as well as the exceptions set
out in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) as well.
When under sub-section (3) which also relates to a ban
concerning "other proceedings", the law-makers wanted
to specifically exclude from such ban such of those
proceedings which are also likely to arise in a suit, but
yet the imposition of ban of an unregistered firm need
not be imposed. Keeping the said intent of the law-
makers in mind, when we read clauses (a) and (b) of
sub-section (3), it can be understood that even though
such other proceedings may be for the enforcement of
any right to sue but yet if it is for the dissolution of a
firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right or
power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, the
same can be worked out by way of a suit in a court or
by way of other proceedings in that suit and the same
will not be affected by the ban imposed under sub-
section (3). Similarly, any steps initiated at the instance
of an official assignee, a receiver or court under the
Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) or
the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) to
realise the property of an insolvent partner in a pending
suit of a court also stand excluded from the ban
imposed under sub-section (3). The specific exclusions
contained in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3),
therefore, makes the position clear to the effect that
even though such proceedings may fall under the
expression "other proceedings" and may be intrinsically
connected with a suit in a court, yet the ban would not
operate against such proceedings.
17. When we read sub-section (4), the ban imposed
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) will have no
application to any of those proceedings set out in
clauses (a) and (b) of the said sub-section (4). A
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (41 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
specific reference to clause (b) of sub-section (4)
disclose that in the last part of the said sub-clause it is
specifically provided that other proceedings incidental to
or arising from any suit or claim of set-off not
exceeding Rs 100 in value under those specific statute
referred to in the said sub-clause can also be launched
without any ban being operated as provided under sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3). The said part of clause (b) of
sub-section (4) thus gives a vivid picture as to the
position that the "other proceeding" specified in the said
sub-section can only relate to a pending suit in a court
and not to any other different proceeding which can be
categorised as "other proceedings".
......
22. Under the Partnership Act, the expression "court" is
not defined. In Section 2(e) of the said Act though it is
stated that the expressions used but not defined, the
definition in the Contract Act, 1872 can be applied, in
the Contract Act also there is no specific definition set
out for the expression "court". However, we find a
definition of the "court" in Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996
Act, which reads as under:
"2. Definitions.--(1) In this Part, unless the context
otherwise requires--
(a)-(d) ***
(e) "Court" means the Principal Civil Court of Original
Jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in
exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having
jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-
matter of the arbitration if the same had been the
subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil
court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or
any Court of Small Causes;".
21.11 Thus the objection is devoid of merits and deserves to
be rejected.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (42 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
22. Now coming to the merits of the writ petition. To decide the
writ petition this Court deems appropriate to quote some of the
provisions of the NIB relevant for the purpose of the writ petition:-
"GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS"
17. All bids, in which any of the prescribed conditions
are not fulfilled or which have been vitiated by errors in
calculations, totaling or discrepancies in figures or words
or other discrepancies, will be liable to rejection.
18. No conditional bids shall be accepted and will be
rejected summarily forthwith.
23. The acceptance of the bid rest with the competent
authority who does not bind itself to accept the lowest
bid, and reserves to itself the authority to reject any or
all the bids received without assigning any reason.
"CHAPTER 1 INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS (ITB)"
1.8 The bidders is required to study all instructions,
forms, terms and conditions and other details in the bid
documents. Failure to furnish information by the bid
documents or submission of a bid not substantially
responsive to the bid documents in every respect will be
at the bidder's risk and may result in rejection of its bid.
1.12 Bidders shall submit only unconditional bids.
Conditional bids are liable to be rejected summarily. The
bid documents show already the specific terms and
conditions on which bids are required by the
Department. Hence all bids should be in strict
conformity with the bid documents and should be
fulfilled in wherever necessary, and initiated. Incomplete
bid is liable to be rejected. The terms and conditions of
the bid documents are firm, as such conditional bids are
liable to be rejected.
NOTE: The bidder should provide all the prequalification
information in the prescribed formats along with
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (43 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
satisfactory work completion certificates from an officer
not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent
duly Self Attested/Notary attested.
7. Omissions, 7.3 Tenderers shall carefully examine the
Errors and scope of work and specifications and fully
clarification; Pre- inform themselves as to the conditions and
Tender Meeting matters, which may in any way affect the
work or the cost thereof. Should a
Tenderer find discrepancies or omissions in
the documents or should he be in doubt as
to their meaning he should notify the
Deptt. in writing not later than one week
earlier or present his request in written
form during the pre-bid meeting. The
Deptt. will respond to any request which is
made prior to or during the pre-bid
conference. No such request after the pre-
bid meeting shall be entertained.
Any resulting interpretation or modification
of the tender documents shall be issued to
all tenderers as an addendum, which will
become a part of the tender documents.
The tenderers shall acknowledge in writing
the receipt of each addendum. No claims
except as otherwise expressly provided will
afterwards be accepted due to non-
understanding or mis-interpretation of the
tender documents.
15. Format and 15.5 All bids, in which any of the prescribed
signing of bid conditions are not fulfilled or which have
been vitiated by errors in calculations,
totaling or other discrepancies or which
contain over-writing in figures or words or
corrections not initialed and dated, may be
liable to rejection.
16. Sealing and 16.2 Contents of Cover-1- It should contain
marking following:-
7. Bankers/financial institutions sanction
letters for desired fund and non-fund-
based credit facilities available (shall be of
period with in 3 months from the date of
opening of prequalification bid) (From FIN-
2).
8. An affidavit on Rs. 500 stamp paper
illustrating the list of works, its cost and all
information in brief of which are in hand
for execution for calculation of bidding
capacity (Form FIN-3).
10. Declaration of Historical Contact Non-
performance on Rs. 500 stamp (Form FIN-
05).
20. Schedule-2; Statement having read
the tender document.
21. Schedule 3.1; Undertaking
22. Schedule 3.2; Deviation from
technical specification
23. Schedule 3.3; Deviation from
condition of contract
24. Summary of financial information
prescribed in Schedule 4
F. Bid Opening and
Evaluation
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (44 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
19. Opening of bids 19.1 Additional Chief Engineer, Project PHED,
by department Bharatpurorother duly authorized
Committee will open the bids online on
website in the presence of Bidder(s) or
their authorized representative(s) who
may choose to be present at the time of
bid opening. The bids shall be opened in
two stages. In first stage, the pre-
qualification bid shall be opened and
evaluated. The financial Bid by competent
authority, shall be opened at a later date,
which will be informed to all responsive
and pre-qualified bidders.
20. Preliminary 20.3 Substantial bid
Examination of bids Notwithstanding the preliminary
examination, the department will
determine the substantial bidder.
Substantial bids are those which meet the
following requirements:
Properly digitally signed,
Bid Security fees, Bid document cost and
Bid processing fee,
Responsive to all requirements of the bid
documents and the instructions to bidders,
Clarification and substantiation required to
assess the quality of the offer, No
deviations from terms and conditions (vol.-
I), scope of work and Specifications (vol.-
II), Drawings (vol.-III) and Preamble to
Price Schedule and reservations affecting
the scope and quality of the work, limiting
the rights of the Department. Or the
bidder's obligations, or whose rectification
would affect the competitive position of the
other substantial bidder.
20.4 If a bid is not substantially responsive it
will be rejected by the Department and will
not be used for further evaluation. The
financial offers of non responsive bidder
will ot be opened. The Department's
determination of a bid's responsiveness is
to be based on the contents of the bid
itself without recourse to extrinsic
evidence.
It is expressly stated that the information
contained in the Cover-1 of the bid will be
used to define whether a bid is substantial
or not. The Bidders and therefore, advised
to submit complete bids only.
21. Evaluation for 21.3 The Department reserves the right not to
pre-qualification consider any deviation that in the sole
discretion of the Department is found
unacceptable. The Department shall
require such deviations to be withdrawn,
for the unaccepted deviations. The
evaluation subsequently will be made on
the rates quoted for such items in original
offer.
23. The questions for consideration before this Court is whether,
merely on reading the bank certificate dated 21.05.2024 issued by
the Bank of India in favour of one of the joint venture partners,
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (45 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
namely M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. (the lead partner), it could have
been concluded that the petitioner joint venture was not in
possession of the requisite credit facility available within three
months from the date of opening of the pre-qualification bid.
24. Further, this Court is required to examine whether, under the
RTPP Act, 2012 as well as the Rule of 2013, the procuring
authority had the power to seek clarification. This Court is also
required to consider whether the respondents exercised their
discretion properly by seeking clarification from one party, namely
respondent No. 4, while not seeking a similar clarification from the
present petitioner, and whether such action amounts to
discrimination.
25. Both the parties have strongly relied upon the NIB. Learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that FIN-2 was a
mandatory document and ought to have been submitted by the
petitioner accurately and in the prescribed format so as to
establish, beyond doubt, that each party to the JV possessed the
financial capacity of more than 10% of the estimated project cost,
which is approximately Rs.19.265/-Crores.
25.1 This Court finds that, as per the contents of Cover-1 of the
NIB, particularly Clause 16.2 of Volume-I at page No.102 of the
paper book of the writ petition, Clause 7 & 8 reads as under:
"7. Bankers/financial institutions sanction letters for
desired fund & non-fund-based credit facilities available
(shall be of period with in 3 months from the date of
opening of prequalification bid) (Form FIN-2).
8.An affidavit on Rs 500 stamp paper illustrating the list
of works, its cost and all information in brief of which
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (46 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
are in hand for execution for calculation of bidding
capacity (Form FIN-3)."
25.2 Both the parties admit that these documents were
mandatory and were required to be submitted as part of Cover-1
of the bid.
25.3 This Court further finds that the Evaluation Committee, while
considering the bids in its meeting held on 25.06.2024 has
recorded as under:
"OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (SPECIAL
PROJECTS) PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT RAJASTHAN F-18, New Building, I
Floor, 2, CIVIL LINES-JAIPUR-302006
0141-2220553 email: [email protected]
No.:F.724(1A)(Bid)/CE(SP)/PHED/CDBP/JJM/Pkg-
1A/2024-25/407-412 Dated: 25/6/24
MINUTES OF MEETING OF BID EVALUATION
COMMITTEE
(NIT No. 10/2023-24 of ACE(P) Bharatpur)
1) A meeting of Bid Evaluation Committee of CE(SP),
PHED was held on 24.06.2024 at 4.00 PM in chamber of
CE(SP) PHED, at Jal Bhawan, Jaipur to discuss and
deliberate on technical bids of the work of EMI at existing
Intake well at Chambal River. Raw Water pipeline from
Intake to RWR-1 and RWR-2 at Dholpur, Main Raw Water
Pumping Stations at RWR-1 & RWR-2. WTP 135 MLD Near
RWR-02 & 5.0 MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station,
WTP 5.0 MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station, CDS,
VDS, and Rising Mains & FHTC for Dholpur & Saipau Block
including allied works (Package-01A), put to bidding on
percentage rate basis single point responsibility turn-key
contract vide NIT No. 10/2023-24 of the office of ACE(P),
Bharatpur. Estimated Cost: Rs. 1284.30 Cr, opened online
on 22.05.2024 and submitted by ACE(P) Bharatpur vide
Rajkaj Ref. no. 8046083 dated 13.06.2024 to the office of
CE(SP), Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (47 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
2 Following Members of Committee were present in the
meeting: -
(i) Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Chief Engineer (SP) PHED
(ii) Sh. Ramesh Sankhla, FA (JJM) PHED Jaipur
(iii) Sh. Vikas Gupta, SE & TA to CE (SP), PHED
3) At the outset of the meeting, following facts of the case
were presented by SE&TA to CE(SP) before the Bid
Evaluation Committee: -
i. Online bids were floated through NIT No.
10/2024-25, issued by the office of Additional Chief
Engineer (Project), PHED, Region Bharatpur and
uploaded on SPPP on 15.09.2023 and on e-
procurement portal on 15.09.2023. The NIT was
also published in newspapers through DIPR.
ii. Pre-bid meeting for the NIT was held on
27.09.2023. As per the schedule, the technical bids
were opened on 22.05.2024. On scrutinizing e-
procurement details, 04 bidders submitted their
bids:
I. M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd.
II. M/s NCC Limited.
III. M/s SPML-JWIL JV (JV of M/s SPML Infra Ltd.
And M/s JWIL infra Ltd.)
IV. M/s GVPR-HES JV (JV of M/s GVPR Engineers
Limited and M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd.)
iii. On examining, it was found that four (4) bidders
have deposited bid document fee. RISL processing
fee and bid security physically. In light of above,
the technical bids of the bidders were downloaded
and processed by ACE(P) Bharatpur,
4) ACE (P) Bharatpur submitted evaluation statement for
prequalification bid to the office of CE (SP) through letter
vide Rajkaj Ref. no. 8046083 dated 13.06.2024.
Documents submitted by bidder were further scrutinized
at CE(SP) office and FA(JJM) office.
Findings are listed as below:-
l. M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure
Ltd.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (48 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
A. The firm is registered in AA class in PHED
Rajasthan.
B. Bid document fee and Bid processing fee have
been submitted through e-challan. However, it
does not have reference of either NIT or the
tendered work.
C. Bid security has been submitted in the form of
Bank Guarantees.
D. The bidder meets the requirement of financial
Criteria as per bid documents ie. Average Annual
Turnover, Net Worth, Credit Limit, Bidding Capacity
and financial stability.
E. The bidder meets requirement of technical
criteria.
F. ACE(P) Bharatpur has recommended the bidder
as responsive subject to clarification/lacking
documents meeting TD requirement.
II. M/s NCC Limited.
A. The firm is registered in AA class in PHED
Rajasthan.
B. Bid document fee and Bid processing fee have
been submitted through e-challan.
C. Bid security has been submitted in the form of
Bank Guarantee.
D. The bidder meets the requirement of financial
Criteria as per bid documents i.e. Average Annual
Turnover. Net Worth. Credit Limit. Bidding
Capacity and financial stability.
E. The bidder meets requirement of technical
criteria
F. FIN-5 for History of non performing contract,
submitted by the bidder, is not as per the
prescribed FIN-5 format.
G. ACE(P) Bharatpur has recommended the bidder
as responsive subject to clarification/lacking
documents meeting TD requirement.
III. M/s SPML-JWIL JV.
A. Both the firms in JV are registered in AA class in
PHED Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (49 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
B. Bid document fee and Bid processing fee have
been submitted through e-challan.
C. Bid security of 2% of NIT cost has been
submitted in the form of Bank Guarantee.
D. The bidder meets the requirement of financial
Criteria as per bid documents i.e. Average Annual
Turnover, Net Worth, Credit Limit, Bidding
Capacity and financial stability.
E. The ratio of JV agreement between M/s SPML
and M/s JWIL is shown as SPML 51% (Fifty
Percent) and JWIL 49% (Forty Nine Percent)
having discrepancy in figures and words. Also, in
the JV agreement, it is written that SPML shall be
the Partner-in-Charge of the JV and JWIL shall be
the other member of JV. There is no clear mention
of lead partner of JV.
Further, requirement for consent of the
Department for modification /amendment in JV
agreement has not been mentioned.
F. M/s JWIL. in its bidding capacity affidavit has
mentioned additional line that "This is also certified
that other orders under execution by the firm shall not
materially affect the bidding capacity of the firm as
required in this tender". Clarification in this regard is
required from the bidder. Clarification is also required
regarding M/s SPML's FIN-3 for bidding capacity
wherein a note is given that 'Figures are without
considering unbilled and O&M portion. Projects which
have financial liability for SPML have been shown
above, whereas substantially completed projects and
projects wherein SPML is only technical partner is not
listed'.
G. The bidder meets requirement of technical criteria.
H. FIN-5 for History of non performing contract,
submitted by M/s JWIL, Is not as per the prescribed
FIN-5 format.
H. ACE(P) Bharatpur has recommended the bidder as
responsive subject to clarification/lacking documents
meeting TD requirement.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (50 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
IV. M/s GVPR-HES JV.
A. M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd., the lead partner, is
registered in AA class in PHED Rajasthan and the other
partner M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. is registered in AA
class in WRD, Rajasthan.
B. Bid document fee and Bid processing fee have been
submitted through e-challan.
C. Bid security of 2% of NIT cost has been submitted
in the form of Bank Guarantee.
D. PQ requirement for Credit Limit criterion: As per the
eligibility criteria for prequalification of bidders
regarding credit limit each member of JV must meet at
least 10% of the credit limit requirement (Rs. 19.264
Cr out of total requirement of Rs. 192.64 Cr for the
bidder in this bid). As per bid document (PQ criteria),
the credit limit requirement is as under. "Credit limit
(Fund based and non fund based) unutilized and
available with the bidder shall not be less than 15%
(Rs. 192.64 Cr in this bid) of the estimated cost of
work.
Further, the certificate of credit limit to be issued by
the Bank in FIN-2 for certification of unutilized and
available credit limit should be of period within 3
months from date of opening of pre-qualification bid.
Bidder's credit limit as per the technical bid: The
bidder has submitted certificate of Bank of India dated
21.05.2024 in favour of M/s HES (the other partner of
JV bidder), which mentions as under:
"We hereby advise that if the contract for the work is
awarded to the firm, we shall be able to provide
working capital facilities to the extent of Rs. 20 Crore
to meet your working capital requirements for
executing the contract during the contract period
through consortium banking arrangements subject to
bank's extent guidelines on the same."
The above advice of Bank clearly reveals that the firm
does not have unutilized and available credit limit on
the date of issue of the same on 21.05.2024 (i.e.
before opening of prequalification bid, as per PQ
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (51 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
criterion). As the certificate is clear regarding non
availability of credit limit of Rs. 19.264 Crore with the
JV partner, no clarification from the Bank or the bidder
is needed. So, the bidder does not meet this criterion.
The bidder does not meet the requirement of financial
Criteria.
E. In form FIN-1 of the lead partner M/s GVPR, total
assets and total liabilities are shown as same and
liabilities are not matching with CA's certificate.
Further, the CA's certificate does not mention name of
firm.
F. In case of JV partner M/s HES FIN-1 in prescribed
format and CA certificate, as required in the bid
document, are not found in the technical bid. Further,
CA certificate in support of financial stability (FIN-4),
as required in bid document, is not found in the
technical bid. GST Coruncate does not bear digital
signature.
G. The bidder meets requirement of technical criteria
I. FIN-5 for History of non performing contract,
submitted by Ms JWIL, is not as per the prescribed
FIN-5 format.
J. ACE(P) Bharatpur has recommended the bidder as
non-responsive on account of not meeting financial
criteria with regard to credit limit requirement, may be
decided by BEC.
5) Bid Evaluation Committee deliberated the responsiveness
of bidders as follows-
Sr. Name of bidder Status Clarification / Lacking
No
Documents/comments
1. M/s Megha Responsive subject 1. As the e-challan for
Engineering to compliance by bid document and bid
and ACE(P) Bharatpur processing fees do not
Infrastructure of the comments have reference of either
Ltd. made by BEC NIT or the tendered
work, deposition of the
required amount against
this NIT be verified from
the concerned division.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (52 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
2. M/s NCC Limited. Responsive subject 1. Clarification
to compliance by regarding FIN-5 in
ACE(P) Bharatpur prescribed format, as
of the comments lacking document, be
made by BEC sought.
3. M/s SPML-JWIL JV Responsive subject 1. Clarification
to compliance by regarding FIN-5 of M/s
ACE(P) Bharatpur JWIL in the prescribed
of the comments format, as lacking
made by BEC document, be sought.
2. Clarification for
lacking in JV agreement,
as mentioned at (4) III.
E above be sought.
3. Regarding additional
line in the affidavit for
bidding capacity given
by M/s JWIL and a note
in FIN-3 by M/s SPML.,
as mentioned at (4) III.F
above, clarification shall
be taken from the bidder
that no liability
whatsoever exists except
mentioned in the bidding
capacity.
4 M/s GVPR-HES JV Non-responsive The bidder does not meet
financial criteria (PQ
criteria) with regard to
credit limit requirement,
as mentioned at (4) IV.
D, above.
6) In view of above and as per recommendation by the ACE
(P) Bharatpur, the following decisions were taken:
i. Responsiveness of the following bidders be decided
by ACE (P) Bharatpur after compliance of the
comments of BEC as mentioned above and compliance
of point no. 06,7(2).08 and 13 of the checklist
(Format-B) and submit compliance before FC:
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (53 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(a) M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd.
(b) M/s NCC Limited
(c)M/S SPML-JWIL JV
ii. Following bidder is decided as non-responsive:
(a) M/s GVPR-HES JV
iii. Before declaring responsiveness of the bidders, following
should be ensured by Addl. Chief Engineer (Project),
Bharatpur:
(a) It should be ensured that all required documents
such as JV Agreement, JV Power of Attorney. Power of
Attorney, Historical Contract Non- Performance,
Affidavit (C), Bidding Capacity (Fin-3), Financial
Stability (Fin-4), Bank Guarantee and all documents
related to non-judicial stamp etc. are received in
original on Stamp Paper.
(b) Bank Guarantee submitted by the bidders towards
bid security be got verified from issuing bank as per
provisions of RTPP Rules 2013.
(c) Compliance of Rule 43 of RTPP Rules 2013
regarding appropriate publicity of NIB and compliance
of Rule 63(4) of RTPP Rules 2013 if responsive bidders
are less than 3 and compliance of Rule 68 of RTPP
Rules 2013, if there is single responsive bidder, be
ensured.
(d) Compliance of section 17 of RTPP Act 2012 and
Rule 51(2) of RTPP Rules 2013 regarding publication of
corrigendum on SPPP portal and Newspaper be
ensured.
(e) Compliance of Rule 11 of RTPP Rules 2013 be
ensured.
(f) It should be ensured that the bidding capacity
submitted by the bidder is as per the requirement of
bid document.
(g) ACE(P) Bharatpur should ensure verification of GST
registration certificate of the bidders.
(7)ACE (P) Bharatpur is directed to ensure compliance of
the comments given by BEC and meeting the bid
requirements before proceeding for opening of the price bid
of the responsive bidders.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (54 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(8) ACE(P) Bharatpur is directed to keep evidence of
publication on record as per rules, specially publication of
corrigendum of bids etc. on portal and newspapers.
(9) ACE(P) Bharatpur is to ensure that financial bid shall be
opened at least 5 days after uploading the decision of ACE(P)
Bharatpur on SPPP portal so that a fair amount of time
remains available for bidders to appeal, if required.
(10) ACE(P) Bharatpur is to ensure submission of rate
justification to the office of Secretary 11 RWSSMB, Jaipur
through Chief Engineer (SP), 3 days prior to opening of
financial bid.
(11) ACE(P) Bharatpur to ensure compliance of the directions
of FD vide ID No. 102301081 dated 12.04.2023 and
directions of NJJM dated 19.02.2024.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
No.: F.724(LA) (Bid)/CE(SP)/THED/CDBP/JJM/Pkg-1A/2024-
251407-412 Dated: 25/06/24
Copy forwarded to the following for information and
necessary action:
1. Secretary, PHED, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. MD (JJM), PHED, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Chief Engineer (SP), PHED, Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. Financial Advisor (JJM), PHED Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. Secretary RWSSMB, Jaipur
6. Addl. Chief Engineer, PHED Project Region Bharatpur.
25.4 On perusal of the above, it is evident that deficiencies were
noticed in the bids submitted by the other bidders, namely M/s
Megha Engineering, HNCC, HPL, and JWIL, while evaluating their
responsiveness. In the case of respondent No. 4, not only was
FIN-3 found to be in incorrect format and inappropriate, but
several other queries were also raised by the Evaluation
Committee, as reflected in the minutes of the meeting from
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (55 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
respondent no. 4 and other bidders but no clarification was sought
from the petitioner and was directly declared non-responsive.
25.5 This Court further finds that the respondents have contended
that not only was the petitioner's FIN-2 not submitted in the
prescribed format, but the letter dated 21.05.2024 issued by the
Bank of India also did not demonstrate the availability of the
requisite unutilized credit limit.
25.6 For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to
reproduce the relevant contents of the letter issued by the Bank of
India, which read as follows:
"If the contract for the work, namely "Work of EMI at
existing Intake well at Chambal River, Raw Water
pipeline from Intake to RWR-1 and RWR-2 at Dholpur,
Main Raw Water Pumping Stations at RWR-1 & RWR-2,
Water Treatment Plant 135 MLD Near RWP-02 & 5.0
MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station, Treatment
Plant 5.0 MLD at Dholpur, Cluster Pumping Station,
CDS, VDS, and Rising Mains & FHTC for Dholpur &
Saipau Block including allied works including allied
works (Package-01A)" is awarded to the above firm, we
shall be able to provide working capital facilities to the
extent of Rs. 20 Crores to meet your working capital
requirements for executing the above contract during
the contact period, through consortium banking
arrangements subject to Bank's extent guidelines on the
same."
25.7 The interpretation made by the respondent no. 1 to 3 upon
the aforesaid Bank Certificate and making the petitioner non
responsive, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to
furnish a clarification, while simultaneously extending such
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (56 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
opportunity to the other bidders is in the opinion of this Court,
arbitrary and discriminatory.
25.8 This conclusion is further fortified by the subsequent
communication dated 25.05.2026 issued by the Bank of India in
continuation of its earlier certificate dated 21.05.2024, wherein it
has been categorically clarified that as on the date of issuance of
the original certificate, one of the constituents of the petitioner's
Joint Venture, namely M/s HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. had an available
unutilised working capital of Rs.20/- Crores, which exceeded the
minimum financial requirement prescribed under the NIB. It is to
be noted that the learned Advocate General had accepted that
credit facility includes working capital.
25.9 This court finds that had a similar opportunity for clarification
been afforded to the petitioner as was admittedly granted to the
other bidders, particularly as reflected in the minutes of the
Evaluation Committee meeting dated 25.06.2024, the alleged
ambiguity could have been clarified at the threshold itself. Such a
course would not only have avoided the present litigation but
would also have ensured greater competition in the bidding
process, thereby enabling the procuring entity to secure the most
competitive financial bid and safeguarding the interests of the
public exchequer.
25.10 Learned counsel appearing for the parties have placed
reliance upon the provisions of the RTPP Act, 2012 and the Rules
of 2013 framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the respondents
contended that it lies exclusively within the discretion of the
Procuring Entity to determine in which cases clarifications may be
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (57 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
sought from bidders and in which cases bids are liable to be
rejected outright. It was submitted that such administrative
discretion ought not to be interfered with by this Court.
25.11 This Court finds that the arguments raised by the
respondents are contrary to the law as available under the RTPP
Act, 2012. The object of the RTPP Act, 2012 reads as under:
“to regulate public procurement with the objectives of
ensuring. transparency, fair and equitable treatment
of bidders, promoting competition, enhancing
efficiency and economy and safeguarding integrity in the
procurement process and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
Whereas, the State Government considers it necessary
to ensure the highest standards of transparency,
accountability and probity in the public procurement
process and to enhance public confidence in public
procurement.”
Section 25 of the RTPP 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 it contains false information;
(c) the bidder submitting the bid, his agent or
any one acting on his behalf, gave or agreed to
give, to any officer or employee of the procuring
entity or other governmental authority a
gratification in any form, or any other thing of
value, so as to unduly influence the procurement
process;
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (58 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(d) a 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 for reasons to be recorded in writing. (4) Every
decision of the procuring entity under sub-section(3)
shall be –
(a) communicated to the concerned bidder in
writing;
(b) published on the State Public Procurement
Portal.
Rule 59, 60 & 61 of the Rules of the 2013 reads as under:
“59. Determination of responsiveness.- (1) The bid
evaluation committee shall determine the
responsiveness of a bid on the basis of biding
documents and the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 7.
(2) A responsive bid is one that meets the requirements
of the bidding documents without material deviation,
reservation, or omission where:-
(a) “deviation” is a departure from the requirements
specified in the bidding documents;
(b) “reservation” is the setting of limiting conditions or
withholding from complete acceptance of the
requirements specified in the bidding documents; and
(c) “Omission” is the failure to submit part or all of the
information or documentation required in the bidding
documents.
(3) A material deviation, reservation, or omission is one
that,
(a) if accepted, shall:-
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (59 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
(i) affect in any substantial way the scope, quality, or
performance of the subject matter of procurement
specified in the bidding documents; or
(ii) limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the
bidding documents, the procuring entity’s rights or the
bidder’s obligations under the proposed contract; or
(b) if rectified, shall unfairly affect the competitive
position of other bidders presenting responsive bids.
(4) The bid evaluation committee shall examine the
technical aspects of the bid in particular, to confirm that
all requirements of bidding document have been met
without any material deviation, reservation or omission.
(5) The procuring entity shall regard a bid as responsive
if it conforms to all requirements set out in the bidding
documents, or it contains minor deviations that do not
materially alter or depart from the characteristics,
terms, conditions and other requirements set out in the
bidding documents, or if it contains errors or oversights
that can be corrected without touching on the
substance of the bid.
60. Clarification of bids.- (1) To assist in the
examination, evaluation, comparison and qualification
of the bids, the bid evaluation committee may, at its
discretion, ask any bidder for a clarification regarding
its bid. The committee’s request for clarification and the
response of the bidder shall be in writing.
(2) Any clarification submitted by a bidder with regard
to its bid that is not in response to a request by the
committee shall not be considered. (3) No change in
the prices or substance of the bid shall be sought,
offered, or permitted, except to confirm the correction
of arithmetic errors discovered by the committee in the
evaluation of the financial bids.
(4) No substantive change to qualification information
or to a submission, including changes aimed at making
an unqualified bidder, qualified or an unresponsive
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (60 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
submission, responsive shall be sought, offered or
permitted.
(5) All communications generated under this rule shall
be included in the record of the procurement
proceedings.
61. Non-material Non-conformities in bids.- (1)
The bid evaluation committee may waive any
nonconformities in the bid that do not constitute a
material deviation, reservation or omission, the bid
shall be deemed to be substantially responsive.
(2) The bid evaluation committee may request the
bidder to submit the necessary information or
document like [audited statement of accounts, PAN,
etc.] within a reasonable period of time. Failure of the
bidder to comply with the request may result in the
rejection of its bid.
(3) The bid evaluation committee may rectify non-
material nonconformities or omissions on the basis of
the information or documentation received from the
bidder under sub-rule (2).
25.12 A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions and the object of
the Act makes it evident that the primary object of the RTPP Act,
2012 is to ensure that every bidder is treated fairly and equally,
without any discrimination. If the argument advanced by the
respondents is accepted, namely that it falls within the exclusive
domain of the procuring authority to determine which documents
constitute an omission, in which cases clarifications are required,
and in which cases clarifications are not required on a case-to-
case basis, it would amount to a complete violation of the object
of the Act of 2012. Learned counsel for the respondents submited
that in the case of the petitioner, clarification regarding FIN-2
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (61 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
could not have been sought, whereas clarification regarding FIN-3
could have been sought and was rightly sought.
25.13 This Court finds that if such an approach adopted by the
procuring authority is permitted and accepted, the very object of
the Act would be completely defeated. This Court further finds
from the record that, in various minutes meeting the same
department, in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 23.12.2024,
chaired by different officers, sought clarification from M/s SMC,
Civet JV despite the omission of FIN-2. A copy of the said Minutes
of the Meeting is available of the paper book. The relevant extract
reads as under:
“Credit limit submitted by the partner fir M/s SMC
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in this JV firm is not as per
prescribed format. Need to be verified and obtained in
the prescribed format as per TD (FIN-2) from issuing
bank.”
25.14 If the procuring entities of the department are permitted to
act in such a manner that, in one case, they allow certain bidders
to rectify deficiencies or submit clarifications in the prescribed
form, while denying the same opportunity to another bidder, the
very object of the RTPP Act, 2012 would be rendered nugatory. If
such a situation is permitted to continue, it may result in
substantial loss to the public exchequer, as the lowest bidder could
be ousted solely on account of the discriminatory exercise of
power by the Bid Evaluation Committee.
25.15 This Court finds that the Bid Evaluation Committee is
required to act fairly in every case and to deal with each and
every bidder equally, without adopting any discriminatory
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (62 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
approach. From the Minutes of the Meetings of the Bid Evaluation
Committee, it is evident that clarifications were sought from
respondent No. 4. in regard to FIN 3 which all parties admit to be
essential document as earlier recorded in the order, however, by
merely stating that the deficiencies in the petitioner’s bid
constituted material deviations, the Committee permitted the
clarifications submitted by respondent No. 4 to be taken on record
while denying the petitioner a similar opportunity. Such an
approach is manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the object of the
Act, which mandates fairness, equality, and non-discrimination in
the procurement process.
25.16 This Court finds that the clarification sought from
respondent No. 4 pertained to matters of a more serious nature.
The clarification related to FIN-3, which is required to be furnished
in the prescribed format so that a bidder discloses the list of works
currently in hand, along with their total value in brief, and work for
the purpose of determining the bidder’s bidding capacity.
25.17 This Court finds that for the purpose of determining the
bidding capacity of an individual bidder, FIN-3 is of greater
significance than FIN-2. FIN-2 is primarily intended to ascertain
whether the bidder has the requisite financial facilities available,
whereas FIN-3 is essential for assessing the bidder’s bidding
capacity itself by determining the available bidding capacity. If a
bidder does not possess the requisite bidding capacity, such bidder
would be liable to be disqualified. On the other hand, with regard
to the financial facilities reflected in FIN-2, even if the credit
facility is available with one of the partners of a joint venture, the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (63 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
requirement may still be satisfied, subject to compliance of the
condition that the other joint venture partner possesses the
mandatory minimum financial capacity of 10%, as prescribed.
Therefore, where FIN-2 is not furnished in the prescribed format
or does not clearly disclose the unutilized credit limit, an
opportunity to furnish a proper or clarified FIN-2 may legitimately
be granted so as to deal fairly and equally and to increase
competition.
25.18 This Court finds that the purpose of FIN-2 is merely to
ascertain the availability of financial facilities. From a reading of
the letter dated 21.05.2024 issued by the Bank of India, this
Court is satisfied that the petitioner had an available financial
facility of Rs.20/-Crores, which exceeded the required amount of
Rs.19.265/- Crores. The said position was subsequently clarified
and reaffirmed by the Bank of India through its letter dated
25.05.2026.
25.19 This Court also finds that respondent No. 4 had mentioned
“Nil” in Form FIN-3, which was subsequently corrected and
clarified. It was further evident from the Minutes of the Meeting
dated 25.06.2024 that the deficiency in the FIN-3 submitted by
respondent No. 4 were regarded as a serious deficiency.
Nevertheless, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 treated the said deficiency
with considerable leniency and permitted respondent No. 4 to
furnish the necessary clarification in respect of FIN-3. In contrast,
the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity whatsoever to
clarify or rectify the alleged deficiency in its FIN-2.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (64 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
25.20 This Court further finds that, after the petitioner was
declared non-responsive and excluded from the bidding process,
only three bidders remained in the fray. The record further reveals
that the matter remained pending with the respondents for a
considerable period of 11 monts. During the intervening period,
two of the remaining bidders did not extend the validity of their
bids, although their quoted prices were higher than that of
respondent No. 4. Consequently, whether by design or otherwise,
respondent No. 4 ultimately remained the sole eligible bidder by
virtue of the actions of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The bid of
respondent No. 4, which came to be accepted, was for
Rs.1438.03/-Crores, substantially higher than the estimated
project cost of Rs.1284.30/-Crores.
25.21 This Court further finds that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3
went to the extent of defending the bid submitted by respondent
No. 4 and the price quoted by it by comparing the same with the
BSR rates of 2022 and 2023. However, the estimated cost of the
work had admittedly been prepared on the basis of the BSR rates
of 2021. Such a comparison was, therefore, wholly misconceived
and without any justification. This Court is of the view that, had
respondents Nos. 1 to 3 acted fairly, transparently, and without
discrimination, the petitioner would have been afforded an
opportunity to clarify the alleged deficiency in FIN-2. The
petitioner has asserted that its financial bid was Rs.1226.51/-
Crores, which was even lower than the estimated cost of
Rs.1284.30/- Crores.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (65 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
25.22 This Court also finds that, by adopting a discriminatory
approach and excluding the petitioner from the bidding process
without affording an opportunity to furnish the requisite
clarification, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 accepted a bid which was
substantially higher than the estimated cost, thereby placing an
unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer. Upon an
overall consideration of the record, this Court is satisfied that
respondents Nos. 1 to 3 acted in a discriminatory manner by
denying the petitioner an opportunity to clarify the alleged
deficiency in its bid while extending such an opportunity to
respondent No. 4 in respect of a more substantial deficiency. This
Court further finds that, had a similar opportunity been afforded to
the petitioner, its financial bid of Rs.1226.51/-Crores would have
been considered, it will result in a saving of approximately
Rs.211/- Crores of public money as compared to the accepted bid
of respondent No. 4.
25.23 This Court reaches the above conclusion in light of the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram &
Shyam Co. (Supra), wherein it was held that the disposal of
State contracts must be through a fair, transparent and
competitive process affording equal opportunity to all eligible
participants. The Court further held that even in administrative
action, the principles of natural justice and fairness are implicit,
and any departure from such standards vitiates the decision-
making process. The relevant observations and principles
enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, which are germane to the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (66 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
adjudication of the present controversy, are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“18. The position that emerges is this. Undoubtedly
Rule 28 permits contract for winning mineral to be
granted by the Government by auction or tender. It is
true that auction was held. It is equally true that
according to the State Government, the highest bid did
not represent the market price of the concession. It is
open to the State to dispose of the contract by tender.
Even here the expression “tender” does not mean a
private secret deal between the Chief Minister and the
offerer. Tender in the context in which the expression is
used in Rule 28, means “tenders to be invited from
intending contractors”. If it was intended by the use of
the expression “tender” in Rule 28 that contract can be
disposed of by private negotiations with select
individual, its validity will be open to serious question.
The language ordinarily used in such rules is by public
auction or private negotiations. The meaning of the
expression “private negotiations” must take its colour
and prescribe its content by the words which precede
them. And at any rate disposal of the State property in
public interest must be by such method as would grant
an opportunity to the public at large to participate in it,
the State reserving to itself the right to dispose it of as
best subserve the public weal. Viewed from this angle,
the disposal of the contract pursuant to the letter by
the fourth respondent to the Chief Minister is
objectionable for more than one reason. The writer has
indulged into allegations, the truth of which was not
verified or asserted. The highest bidder whose bid was
rejected on the ground that the bid did not represent
the market price, was not given an opportunity to raise
his own bid when privately a higher offer was received.
If the allegations made in the letter influenced the(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (67 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]decision of the Chief Minister, fair-play in action
demands that the appellant should have been given an
opportunity to counter and correct the same.
Application of the minimum principles of natural justice
in such a situation must be read in the statute and held
to be obligatory. When it is said that even in
administrative action, the authority must act fairly, it
ordinarily means in accordance with the principles of
natural justice variously described as fair play in action.
That having not been done, the grant in favour of the
fourth respondent must be quashed.”
25.24 This Court also relied upon the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banshidhar Construction (P) Ltd.
(Supra), wherein it was held that although judicial review in
contractual matters is limited, the Court must intervene where the
decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble
Apex Court further held that Government instrumentalities are
under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, reasonably and
transparently in the award of public contracts, and any action
founded on extraneous considerations or relaxation of mandatory
tender conditions is liable to be set aside. The relevant extracts
from the aforesaid judgment, having a bearing on the controversy
involved in the present case, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“27. Thus, the said action of the respondent BCCL in
rejecting the technical bid of the appellant on
absolutely extraneous ground and accepting the
technical bid of Respondent 8 though submitted in utter
non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of
Clause 10 of NIT, and subsequently calling upon
Respondent 8 to furnish the shortfall of documents(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (68 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]after the opening of technical bids of the bidders, was
totally arbitrary and illegal.
28. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal
proposition propounded in a catena of decisions of this
Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as
a court of appeal in the matter of award of contracts
and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision
was made; and that the Government and its
instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into
the contracts. However, it is equally well-settled that
the decision of the Government/its instrumentalities
must be free from arbitrariness and must not be
affected by any bias or actuated by mala fides.
….
37. The submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respondents that the project in question being
infrastructure project and also one of the mega
projects, this Court may not interfere more particularly
in view of the fact that agreement has already been
entered into between the respondent BCCL and the
Special Purpose Vehicle of Respondent 8, cannot be
accepted, when we have found that the impugned
decision of the respondent BCCL was grossly arbitrary,
illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. As held earlier, the Government
bodies/instrumentalities are expected to act in
absolutely fair, reasonable and transparent manner,
particularly in the award of contracts for mega projects.
Any element of arbitrariness or discrimination may lead
to hampering of the entire project which would not be
in the public interest.
38. In that view of the matter, the impugned decision
of the respondent BCCL dated 6-5-2024 rejecting the
technical bid of the appellant and further declaring
Respondent 8 as successful bidder is set aside. Any(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (69 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]action/process undertaken or agreement entered into
pursuant to the said decision also stands set aside. It
shall be open for the respondent BCCL to initiate fresh
tender process for the Project and to process the same
in question in accordance with law.”
26. Having come to the above conclusion, the question that now
arises is whether, merely because the contract has been awarded
to respondent No. 4 at a higher cost and respondent No. 4 has
invested certain amounts pursuant thereto, this writ petition
deserves to be dismissed, as contended by the respondents.
26.1 This Court finds that such a contention cannot be accepted
for more than one reason.
26.2 Firstly, the petitioner approached this Court without any
undue delay and challenged the impugned action on 29.08.2024.
Secondly, this Court had already passed a specific interim order on
16.10.2024. Despite the pendency of the present writ petition and
the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
respondent No. 4 consciously took the risk of proceeding with the
contract. The financial bid of respondent No. 4 was approved and
LOI was issued as late as on 03.09.2025. Merely because the LOI
has been issued, certain work has been executed, or respondent
No. 4 has invested money in the project, this Court cannot shut its
eyes to an action which is otherwise found to be arbitrary
discriminatory and contrary to law. More particularly, permitting
respondent No. 4 to continue with the contract would result in the
execution of the work at a cost exceeding the petitioner’s bid by
approximately Rs.211/- Crores, thereby causing a substantial loss
to the public exchequer.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (70 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
27. This Court is of the considered view that while exercising its
power in matters arising out of public procurement, it ordinarily
refrains from interfering with decisions taken by the tendering
authority. However, where the decision-making process is shown
to be arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, or in violation of the
principles of fairness and equality embodied under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, the constitutional jurisdiction of this
Court can undoubtedly be invoked.
28. In the present case, the record reveals that respondent No. 4
was afforded repeated opportunities to clarify and remove
deficiencies in its bid before it was ultimately declared responsive.
The petitioner, however, was denied any similar opportunity to
explain or rectify the alleged deficiencies forming the basis of the
rejection of its bid. Such unequal treatment, in the absence of any
rational justification, vitiates the decision-making process and
constitutes a clear departure from the standards of fairness
expected of a public authority entrusted with the award of public
contracts. Consequently, the impugned action cannot be insulated
from judicial scrutiny merely on the ground that the tender
process has subsequently progressed.
29. This Court has carefully considered the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
It is a settled principle of law that the precedential value of a
decision is to be understood in the context of the facts and issues
that arose for determination therein. Every case is decided on its
own peculiar facts and circumstances, and a precedent cannot be
applied mechanically without examining whether the factual
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (71 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
matrix and the issues involved are substantially similar.
Accordingly, the applicability of the judgments cited by the parties
must necessarily be tested in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
29.1 Insofar as the reliance placed by the respondents upon The
Project Director, RUIDP & Others (supra) is concerned, the
said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the
bidder had been afforded an opportunity by the tendering
authority to cure the deficiencies in its bid. It was only upon the
bidder’s failure to remove those deficiencies despite such
opportunity that the consequential action was upheld by the
Court. The factual foundation of the said decision is, therefore,
materially different from the present case. Here, no opportunity
whatsoever was extended to the petitioner to explain or clarify the
alleged deficiencies in its bid, despite the respondents having
adopted such a course in respect of respondent No. 4. The ratio of
the said decision, therefore, does not advance the case of the
respondents. The relevant observations and principles enunciated
in the aforesaid judgments, which are germane to the adjudication
of the present controversy, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“Coming now to the merits of the case in hand, the
writ-petitioner was required to submit the document
relating to credit facilities in forms Fin-3 to Fin-5. The
Fin-3 stated that the certificate shall be unconditional.
However, the writ-petitioner submitted certificate from
the State Bank of India, which was, besides being
conditional, was not on the format given in Fin-5.This
certificate was issued with the condition that it is
“without any risk and responsibility and guarantee on(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (72 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]the part of the State Bank of India or its officials.” The
writ-petitioner was therefore given opportunity to cure
the deficiency and was sent the letter dated06.09.2017
asking it to cure the deficiency by 11.09.2017, but it
sought time upto 15.09.2017. Yet it failed to remove
the deficiency within the time prayed for. The TEC met
on 20.09.2017and finalized the evaluation of technical
bid and in doing so, it found the bid of the writ-
petitioner non-responsive as the conditions of tender
required rejection of the bid if the documents in
accordance with ITB-16 were not submitted. Learned
Single Judge while ignoring the relevant clauses in the
bid document proceeded to hold that it was not material
deviation as per the requirements specified with the bid
documents and further held that if the bid was
accepted, it would not have in any manner affected in
any substantial way the scope and quality or
performance of the work and the employer ought to
have at examined the case of the writ-petitioner and
allowed rectification of such non-material non-
confirmities. We find that Clause 29.2 of the bid
document has been completely ignored by the learned
Single Judge, which provided that the employer shall
confirm that the documents and information, namely,
(a) letter of technical bid,(b) written confirmation of
authorization to commit the bidder, (c)bid security or
bid security declaration, if applicable; and (d)technical
proposal in accordance with ITB 16, have been provided
in the technical bid, and further mandated that “If any
of these documents or information is missing, the offer
shall be rejected.”
(emphasis supplied)
29.2 Further the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in M/s Geo Miller Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), wherein it was
held that while determining the responsiveness of a bid under Rule
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (73 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
59 of the Rules of 2013, the Bid Evaluation Committee must
examine whether the alleged omission, deviation or reservation is
material in terms of Rule 59(3) of the Rules of 2013, and not
reject a bid merely on account of a technical or trivial defect. The
Division Bench of this Court further held that strict adherence to
Rule 59(3) of the Rules of 2013 is essential to ensure
transparency, fairness, equitable treatment of bidders and
effective competition in the procurement process, and failure to
undertake such an examination renders the decision-making
process unsustainable. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid
judgment, having a bearing on the controversy involved in the
present case, are reproduced hereinbelow:
“3. Under office order dated 15.6.2015, the Chief
Engineer (Project), Department of Public Health
Engineering, Jodhpur, declared the technical bid
submitted by the appellant petitioner non responsive.
The Chief Engineer concluded that the technical
proposals given are non responsive, (i) due to failure to
submit form CON-2; ‘Historical Contract Non
performance’; and (ii) breakup of credit limits
available, utilised and balance required as on
4.2.2015.
7. Learned Single Bench, however, did not accept the
argument advanced by observing and holding as
under:-
“A reading of Form FIN 3.3 read with clauses 2.3.3 in
Part 111 of the bid document clearly required the bidder
to supply details of credit limit (funds based and non-
funds based) available with the bidder and the same
was not to be less than Rs. 22.9 crores. There was a
requirement to specify proposed sources of financing(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (74 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]such as liquid assets, unencumbered real assets, lines
of credit and other financial means, net of current
commitments, available to meet the total construction
cash flow demand of the subject contract or contracts
as indicated in section 3 (evaluation and Qualification
Criteria). Requirement of supplying information of ‘net
of current commitments’ is nothing other than seeking
information as to unutilized funds available. The
information as supplied by the bank on 31.3.2015
regarding financial viability did not disclose whether the
petitioner had any funds available to it as on date bid
document was submitted. The information sought does
not go beyond the scope of the bid requirement as the
very purpose of having information about un-utilized
funds available with bidder touches upon the credibility
and viability of the Company to execute the contract. In
case a bidder, though having a credit limit had already
utilized the entire funds available, it would amount to
having no credit limit for the next project to be
undertaken. The financial viability was part and parcel
of the bid documents and the financial position ought to
be reflected as on the date the bid was submitted.
Therefore, it is held that the documents submitted on
4.2.2015 did not furnish complete and correct
information as required and thus there is no infirmity in
the order dated 15.6.2015.
…..
…..
…..
…..
…..
Rule 59 of the rules of 2013 clearly allows a bid
evaluation committee to determine the responsiveness
of a bid on the basis of biding documents submitted and
in case there is any deviation, reservation or omission
the bid can be declared as non-responsive. As defined
in Rule 59(2)(c) of the Rules of 2013 “Omission” is the(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (75 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]failure to submit part or all of the information or
documentation required in the bidding documents. In
the present case there is omission on the part of the
bidder to supply full details and particulars as required
in Form Con 2 as well as details of un utilized credit
balance as on date of submission of the bid document
and therefore the order dated 15.6.2015 holding the bid
to be non-responsive is justified.”
……..
11. On examination of the entire record we also find
that there is no material on record on basis of that it
can be said that the bid evaluation committee examined
case of the appellant petitioner as per the standards
required under sub-rule(3) of Rule 59 of the Rules of
2013. The Rules of 2013 have been framed by the State
Government exercising the powers conferred by Section
55 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement
Act, 2012. The Act of 2012 is enacted to regulate public
procurement with the objectives of ensuring
transparency, fair and equitable treatment of bidders,
promoting competition, enhancing efficiency and
economy and safeguarding integrity in the procurement
process and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The Rules of 2013 provides a
complete scheme to execute the Act of 2012 which
demands absolute transparency, fairness and equitable
treatment of bidders in promotion of competition and
enhancing efficiency and economy. Rule 59 of the Rules
of 2013 stipulates for determination of the
responsiveness of a bid by a bid evaluation committee
on basis of bidding documents and the provisions of
sub-section(2) of Section 7 of the Act of 2012.
12. As already stated, learned Single Bench held the
order dated 15.6.2015 justified by arriving at a
conclusion that the appellant is guilty of ‘omission’, but
the requirement of the rule is not simple omission but
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (76 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
‘material omission’ and to examine that the bid
evaluation committee should have measured all the
documents as per the standards given under sub-
rule(3). In reply to the writ petition nothing has been
stated as to how the bid evaluation committee satisfied
itself about the standards given under sub-rule(3) of
Rule 59 of the Rules of 2013. The committee, before
arriving to any conclusion, while examining a bid and
the documents submitted therewith, before treating the
same non-responsive, should have satisfied itself that
the omission is such that in the event of acceptance of
bid, it shall affect in any substantial way the scope,
quality, or performance of the subject matter of
procurement specified in the bidding documents; or
limits in any substantial way, inconsistent with the
bidding documents, the procuring entity’s rights or the
bidder’s obligations under the proposed contract, or if
rectified, shall unfairly affect the competitive position of
other bidders presenting responsive bids. The use of
word ‘material’ in sub-rule(2) in addition to the
standards given under sub-rule(3) of Rule 59 is having
great significance. In view of these provisions, the bid
evaluation committee bears a task to examine bids
before it minutely and in consonance to the provision of
the Rules. The committee cannot treat a bid non
responsive merely on count of simple omissions,
deviations or reservations, but is supposed to
determine affect of these defaults on merits by keeping
in mind the provision of Rule 59(3) of the Rules of
2013. This is not a mere formality but provision for
strict compliance to ensure fair competition and also to
maintain transparency. In the instant matter the
compliance of this provision has not been made in its
spirit. The failure on the part of the bid evaluation
committee to adhere the sub-rule(3), in our considered
opinion, makes the order dated 15.6.2015 bad. This
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27270] (77 of 77) [CW-14206/2024]
aspect of the matter has not been considered by
learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for
writ. The judgment impugned, in our considered
opinion, thus is bad.”
(emphasish supplied)
30. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the
present writ petition.
30.1 Consequently, the present writ petition is hereby allowed.
The order dated 29.06.2024 declaring the petitioner’s bid as non-
responsive is hereby quashed and set aside, the petitioner is held
to have fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria and is declared to
be a responsive bidder.
30.2 Any action taken by the respondents subsequent to the filing
of the present writ petition, including the approval of the financial
bid of respondent No. 4, issuance of LOI, execution of the
agreement, or any work carried out pursuant thereto stands set
aside and shall not create any equity in favour of respondent No. 4
so as to defeat the petitioner’s lawful claim.
30.3 The respondents are directed to open and consider the
financial bid of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is found
to be the lowest (L-1) bidder and fulfill all other terms and
conditions of the tender, the respondents shall proceed further in
accordance with law and award the contract to the petitioner
hence forthwith.
31. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J
Sudha/119
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:24:44 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 11:01:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
