Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Satya Construction vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:35384-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 741/2023
M/s Satya Construction, Having Registered Office At 673
Maharana Pratap Marg, Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer Through Its
Partner Kailash Chand Khatri S/o Late Shri Hukmi Chand Khatri,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o 673 Maharana Pratap Marg, Gandhi
Colony, Jaisalmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self
Government Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies,
G 3 Rajmahal Residential Area, Near Civil Lines Phatak,
Jaipur.
3. Municipal Council Jaisalmer, Through Its Commissioner
Having Office At Gadisar Road, Jaisalmer (Raj.).
4. M/s Sunmax Corporation, Through Its Partner Sunil
Kumar Purohit Having Its Registered Address At 2nd
Floor, SF 6, Central Avenue Unishier Victory Building No.
84 2nd Main Road, Palace Guttahali Circle, Begaluru
(Karnataka).
5. Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary To Government,
Department Of Information Technology And
Communications, Government Of Rajasthan, Having Its
Office At IP Building, Yojana Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C
Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005.
6. Rajcomp Info Services Limited, Through Its Managing
Director, 1st Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manas Ranchhor Khatri
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:23 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35384-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-741/2023] Judgment 16/10/2023
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.08.2023, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Bench.
2. Briefly, the facts in the case are that aggrieved against incorrect acceptance of the financial bid which was opened in favour of respondent No.4 - M/s. Sunmax Corporation, the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal before Directorate, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur which came to be dismissed on 04.05.2023. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 04.05.2023, the appellant-petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein notices were issued but no interim relief was granted to him. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-petitioner preferred a writ petition before this court being SB Civil Writ Petition No.7196/2023 ( M/s. Satya Construction vs. The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur and ors). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.05.2023 with a direction to respondent No.1- Secretary, Local Self Government to decide the second appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. Therefore second appeal preferred by the appellant - petitioner too was dismissed by the Directorate, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 03.08.2023.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35384-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-741/2023]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered the matter in its true perspective and has wrongly rejected the Second Appeal of the appellant-petitioner. He submits that the order of the Second Appellate Authority is in complete violation of Rule 80(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Transparency Rules, 2012"). Learned counsel vehemently submitted that he has categorically brought on record the fact that the Rules in the present case have been blatantly violated and breached. He further submits that it could not have been a mere coincidence that out of the 139 items, rates for 133 items quoted by the appellant-petitioner were similar to those quoted by the respondent No.4. He submits that this could only happen unless the confidentiality of the documents has been breached.Learned counsel on the strength of Rule 80(1)(c)of the Transparency Rules, 2012 submits that the Second Appellate Authority should have called for the evidence from the concerned person on the subject that there was no breach of the information of the documents rendered by the respective bidders. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Bench has not appreciated the arguments in the correct perspective and has committed an error while rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner.
4. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar.
5. A bare perusal of Rule-80(1)(c) of the Transparency Rules, 2012 shows that the authority concerned should not have disseminated the information before it is made public as per the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35384-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-741/2023] Rules. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the rates of the appellant/petitioner were within the knowledge of the successful bidder in breach of the provisions of Rule 80(1)(c) of the Transparency Rules, 2012
6. In the opinion of this Court, the Second Appellate Authority has specifically dealt with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record which shows that there was breach in the confidentiality of the documents submitted by the appellant/petitioner or for that matter; any of the bidder. In the present case, merely because the rates of 133 items, out of 139 items, provided by the respondent No.4 are similar to the rates provided by the appellant-petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be a ground to create doubt that the respondents have breached the confidentiality in the tender process undertaken by the respondents.
7. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Bench which reads as under :-
"15. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, was at first concerned about the strange coincidence of 133 items out of 139 items coming on the same pedestal of rates, but the doubt created by the fact in question, gets washed away by the fact that there is a difference of 2.10 crores between the financial bids of the petitioner and the private respondent no.4.
16.This Court finds that the second appellate authority has taken the opinion of the system analyst, who has categorically informed the authority concerned that all the documents on E-tender site are encrypted and thus, (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:23 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35384-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-741/2023] even the system administrator, who is the best person to have access to the documents, he would not have such access to the bid documents, as the bid documents would convert into encrypted documents in readable format only after the bid is opened. The second appellate authority has recorded the possibility of E- procurement systems database being unlawfully accessed was not possible, due to the encryption involved and also the lack of control even of the system administrator. The E-procurement portal is a long drawn phenomena in Rajasthan and is in operation since the Act of 2012 was promulgated, and thus, is a standard operating procedure in the public domain, where all the States functionaries and other public bodies conduct their tender process. In a wider perspective, the order of the second appellate authority is exhaustive and reasoned and is based upon the expert advise of the system analyst, and thus, there no longer remains any reason for this Court to make any intervention in the impugned process.
17. This Court also finds that the order of Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, would not apply in the present case, because the expert advise has been taken by the learned authority before coming to the conclusion, and thus, no case of interference is made out."
8. In view of the discussions made above, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal (Writ) is, therefore, dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 9-Anil Arora/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:23 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)