Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Devendra Construction Co vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16266/2021 M/s. Devendra Construction Co., Through Authorized Person And Partner Shri Yashpal Bishnoi Son Of Shri Devendra Vishnoi, 41-B, Umaid Bhawan Road, Near Sunctiy Art Emporium, Jodhpur- 342001 (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Engineer, Phed, Project Region, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Depak Chandak All through VC JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 11/01/2022
1. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in identical matter being SB Civil Writ Petition No.6959/2021 :
Shaitan Singh Sankhla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the following interim order has been passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.07.2021 :
"In view of the above, the respondent No.2 - Water Resources Department is restrained from insisting the petitioner to pay additional performance security till next date."
2. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition and according to their stand, the State has (Downloaded on 11/01/2022 at 09:20:17 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-16266/2021] required the petitioner to furnish Additional Performance Security as per Clause No.37 of Instructions to Bid (ITB) of the bid document. He clarified that since the amount of petitioner's bid was less than 85% of the estimated cost (as per the calculation given), the respondent - State was justified in its action impugned.
3. In the prima-facie opinion of this Court, the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTPP Rules') do not speak of any additional performance security and any condition dehors the provisions of RTPP Rules cannot be enforced.
4. That apart, the order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the Finance Department is very clear, very categorical in which, the PWD and PHED have been asked not to take additional performance security. On the basis of such circular, the Coordinate Bench has granted interim order.
5. Matter requires consideration.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned AAG, accepts notices on behalf of the respondents.
8. List the matter after four weeks.
9. Meanwhile, the respondents shall not insist the petitioner to pay additional performance security.
10. Connect with SB Civil Writ Petition No.6959/2021.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 19-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 11/01/2022 at 09:20:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)