Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vprpl-Gkr Jv vs Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1042/2025
VPRPL-GKR JV, having its office at 32, Second Floor, Industrial
Estate, B-31, New Power House Rd, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342003
through its authorized representative mr. Suresh Chand Jain S/o
Pushpchand Khivsara aged about 61 Year.
----Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Group
General Manager (Contracts), Having Its Office At C-89 Jan Path
Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur - 302015.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur
Mr. Priyansh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sunil Purohit & Mohd. Amaan
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment Reserved on 18/08/2025 Pronounced on 21/08/2025 Per Mr. Bipin Gupta, J:
1. By way of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12395/2025, whereby, the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.06.2025 was dismissed. It is pertinent to note that the appellant's bid was found to be non-responsive in the technical bid evaluation process and thus the appellant was disqualified from participation in the tender process.
2. Shorn of the fact, respondent had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for work related to hiring of Heavy Earth Moving (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025] Equipment for removal of overburden, raising, loading and transportation etc. of saleable lignite and allied works at Sonari Lignite Mines, District Barmer (Rajasthan). The appellant submitted the bid and on the consideration of the same, appellant was not found qualified as per the pre-qualification criteria and provisions of the tender document.
3. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 29.07.2025, while considering the provisions of the tender document, specifically condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document arrived at a finding that one of the appellant's contract has been terminated by the Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) on account of breach of conditions. Further, the writ petition has been dismissed as there being alternative remedy being available.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that condition No. 2.22.1 of the tender document has not been applied correctly and has been misinterpreted in the present case. Since there has been no adjudication by any Competent Authority regarding the breach of condition having been committed by the appellant, therefore condition No. 2.22.1 is not applicable.
5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that an illegal termination of contract of a lead member of the appellant's joint venture was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and vide order dated 30.09.2022, the High Court stayed the order of blacklisting and held that the blacklisting shall not come in the way of the other contracts of the appellant with various other department/corporation/local bodies etc. and therefore, condition No. 2.22.1 cannot be invoked. (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
6. Another argument raised for the first time by the appellant is that the condition No.2.22.1 is contrary to provisions of Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTPP Act, 2012') and therefore, he can raise the legal issue in appeal and therefore, same be declared to be illegal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court to buttress his arguments -
(i) Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors.; AIR 2024 SC 3784.
(ii) K. Lubna & Ors. Vs. Beevi & Ors.; (2020) 2 SCC 524.
(iii) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors.; (2016) 1 SCC 724.
8. Per contra learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that condition No. 2.22.1(c) applies in case if the contract of an entity has been terminated on account of breach of conditions of the contract. Since the appellant's termination order issued by the Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) has not been stayed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and only order of blacklisting has been stayed, therefore, the termination order remains in currency and therefore, according to condition No. 2.22.1(c) of the tender document, the appellant is not qualified and is a non-performing party.
9. We have heard the counsels for the parties and scanned the material available on record.
10. Tender condition No. 2.22 reads as under:
"2.22 Evaluation of Techno-Commercial Bid 2.22.1 The Bidder, including an individual or any of its Joint Venture member, should not be a non performing (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025] party on the bid submission date. The Bidder, including any Joint Venture Member, shall be deemed to be a non-performing party if it attracts any of the following parameters:
a) Rated as an unsatisfactory performing entity/non-
performing entity by the Company or any State/Central Government Organization/Department and so notified on the website of that organization.
b) Has failed to perform, for the any of the works assigned/awarded by the Company or any State/Central Government Organization/Department in the last 3 (three) years, as evidenced by imposition of a penalty by an arbitral or judicial authority or a judicial pronouncement or arbitral award against the Bidder, including individual or any of its Joint Venture Member, as the case may be.
c) Has been expelled or the contract terminated by the Company or any State/Central Government Organization/ Department or its implementing agencies for breach of such Bidder, including individual or any of its joint Venture Member."
11. The relevant portion of the order of termination dated 08.09.2022 of ISCDL is reproduced as under:
"Due to your lack of planning, default in execution and failure in deployment of adequate resources to perform your obligations as per contract scope and conditions in order to complete the project, major time of Indore Smart City has been wasted and has led to poor water supply and unhygienic sewerage conditions for residents of ABD area. Hence, keeping all these points in consideration in the meeting of Board of Directors of ISCDL, it has been decided to terminate this contract with immediate effect. As a result of termination, your deposit amount in form of Performance bank guarantee of BG No.18721GPER006918 of Rs.
7,48,79,910.00/- and Security deposit Rs.
3,70,81,793.00/- and hold amount of Rs.
83,94,335.00/- is hereby forfeited and your firm M/s Vishnu Prakash R. Punglia Ltd. and Sub-Contracting Agency M/s Teerth Gopicon Pvt. Ltd. is debarred in participation of fore-coming tenders of ISCDL and Indore Municipal Corporation for 5 years."
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
12. The case of the appellant is that condition No. 2.22.1(c) shall be applied only if there is an adjudication by the Competent Court regarding the fact of appellant's termination on account of default. The said submission is not tenable as on a bare reading of condition No. 2.22.1(c) it is clear that it does not require any adjudication and only mandates that if a contract has been terminated for breach of conditions of a contract then such bidder cannot be permitted to participate in the tender process.
13. Further, reading of the order dated 08.09.2022 (Annex.R/12) demonstrates that an agency namely Indore Smart City Development Ltd. (ISCDL) had terminated the contract of one of the joint ventures of the appellant i.e. Vishnu Prakash R. Pungalia Ltd. (VPRPL) on account of default in execution and failure in deployment of adequate resources to perform the obligation. On bare perusal of the said order, it is clearly deducible that the termination of the appellant's joint venture contract by ISCDL was nothing short on account of breach of condition of the contract and therefore also, the action of the respondent cannot be termed arbitrary.
14. The argument of the appellant that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 30.09.2022 has stayed the order of blacklisting and has held that the blacklisting order shall not come in the way of the appellant, and therefore, the contention that he cannot be debarred from participating in the present tender is also not tenable as the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 30.09.2022 has only stayed the order of blacklisting but there is no stay on termination and hence, termination is in currency and therefore, disqualification is justified. (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025]
15. So far as last argument of the appellant that condition No.2.22.1 is contrary to the provision of RTPP Act, 2012. Though, this has been raised for the first time in appeal but the same will also not help the appellant as he had not challenged the condition before participating in the tender process. It is only after having participated and non suited, the appellant has raised this issue which cannot be permitted to be raised as it is settled principle of law that once the game has started then the rules of the game cannot be challenged and therefore also, the disqualification is justified.
16. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, is clearly distinguishable, as that was a case where after the acceptance of the tender of the appellant therein, and after issuance of work order, at the behest of a third person, the tender as well work order was cancelled, whereas in the present case, the appellant has not even been found 'qualified' as he stood disqualified based on the conditions prescribed under condition No. 2.22.1(c).
17. The judgment of Bandeep Singh(supra) is not relevant as the facts of that case are clearly on different footing as it pertained to a situation where re-auction of properties was ordered without affording any sustainable justification.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent on being asked about stage of the tender informed that fresh LOI/work order has been issued and work is in progress.
19. Taking into consideration the facts as discussed above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge has (Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:36864-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-1042/2025] elaborately considered each and every aspect of the case and has dealt with each contention as raised in the petition and thus does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any interference. Hence, the present appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
21. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 4-AnilKC/-
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 10:49:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)