Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pmp Infratech Private Limited vs Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals ... on 30 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 666/2023
Pmp Infratech Private Limited, A Company Registered Under The
Companies Act, 2013 Having Its Registered Office At Block A
Shop 104A, 104B, Ganesh Meridian S. G. Highway Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Mukesh
Kumar Ishwarlal Patel, S/o Sh Ishwarlal Patel Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of 18, Trishla Residency, Nr. R.c. Technical, Opp.
Gujarat High Court, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Mines And Minerals Limited, Through Its
Chairman, Having Its Office At C-89, Jan Path, Lal Kothi
Scheme, Jaipur 302015.
2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Mine And Minerals
Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg, Udaipur
(Raj.).
3. Head Contracts/dgm (F And A), Rajasthan State Mine And
Minerals Limited Having Its Office At 4, Meera Marg,
Udaipur (Raj.).
4. M/s United Coal Carrier, Prop. Manoj Kumar Agarwalla
(Huf), Opp. Canara Bank, Main Road, Jharia Bazar, So
Jharna, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
5. JRL Mining Private Limited, Khasra No. 1126 Luthra
Farms, Rajkori, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Falgun Buch
Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Prateek Gattani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Shweta Chauhan and
Mr. Tarang Gupta
Mr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Gautam Bhadadra Mr.
Vipul Dharnia
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Dinesh Godara
Mr. Ramavatar Sikhwal and Mr. Arpit
Samaria for Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-666/2023]
Mr. Gopal Krishna Chhangani
Ms. Simran Mehta
Mr. Vishal Singh
Mr. Harsh Shekhawat
Mr. Vinay Jain
Mr. Darshan Jain
Mr. Sunil Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Judgment Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 16/03/2026 Pronounced on : 30/03/2026 (Per Sunil Beniwal, J.)
1. The instant Special Appeal arises out of the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8853/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the memorandum of appeal, are that the respondent - Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RSMML') issued an e- tender dated 23.03.2023 inviting bids for "Loading of limestone gitti of various sizes into tippers/dumpers from crusher hopper(s) and/or different stacks lying at the company's Sanu mines, District Jaisalmer, its transportation from the mines to the railway siding at Sanu Railway Station, and its unloading, stacking, watch & ward, and mechanized loading of limestone gitti into railway wagons using front-end loaders etc."
2.1 The tender prescribed specific pre-qualification criteria, including minimum turnover, net worth, and requisite experience in handling industrial minerals. The last date for submission of (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:01 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-666/2023] bids was initially fixed as 24.04.2023, which was subsequently extended to 24.05.2023, along with certain amendments in the eligibility conditions.
2.2 The appellant, claiming to fulfil all the eligibility requirements, particularly with regard to experience in handling industrial minerals, participated in the tender process. Upon opening of the techno-commercial bids on 25.05.2023, five bidders, including the appellant, were shortlisted. After an evaluation period of approximately 36 days, the appellant's bid was declared technically qualified on 30.06.2023. However, within minutes thereafter, the financial bids were opened, wherein the appellant was ranked L3, while respondent nos. 4 and 5 were ranked L1 and L2 respectively.
2.3 The appellant filed a writ petition, inter alia, contending that respondent nos. 4 and 5 were ineligible under the tender conditions, as they lacked the requisite experience in handling "industrial minerals." It was specifically contended that respondent no. 4 possessed experience only in handling coal, which, as per the statutory classification under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1957'), is categorized as a fuel mineral and not an industrial mineral. Similarly, respondent no. 5 was alleged to lack experience in road transportation of industrial minerals, which constituted a vital component of the tender work. Despite these deficiencies, both respondents were declared technically qualified and successful bidders.
2.4 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no distinction between types of minerals was relevant (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:01 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-666/2023] in the present case and that the decision of the respondent authority was taken in public interest.
2.5 Hence, the present appeal.
3. The appellant challenged the acceptance of the financial bid of respondent No. 4 and also raised the issue as to whether the experience of respondent No. 4, who was declared the L-1 bidder, could be considered for the purposes of the tender in question. The contention of the appellant is that respondent No. 4 possesses experience in the transportation of coal, which, according to the appellant, does not fall within the purview of the definition of "industrial mineral," and therefore ought not to have been treated as qualifying experience.
4. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondent- RSMML had duly conducted the tender process in accordance with law, wherein the techno-commercial bids were opened on 25.05.2023 and finalized on 30.06.2023, followed immediately by the opening of the financial bids. Upon evaluation, the petitioner was ranked as L-3, while respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were ranked as L-1 and L-2 respectively, and were accordingly declared successful. 4.1 The Court noted that the decision to award the contract to the lowest bidder, i.e., respondent No. 4, was taken in public interest and in furtherance of safeguarding the public exchequer, particularly in light of the substantial price difference between the bids. It was further held that the respondent-RSMML was well within its authority to award the contract to the lowest bidder to ensure optimal public benefit.
4.2 On the issue of eligibility, the Court observed that the tender conditions required experience in transportation and loading of (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-666/2023] industrial minerals, and respondent No. 4 had furnished the requisite certificate, moreover, in the absence of any specific statutory definition of "industrial minerals" under the Act of 1957, and considering that the tender pertained merely to transportation and handling of limestone, no distinction or classification issue arose.
4.3 The Court also found that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the tender process or its outcome, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief and dismissed the writ petition.
5. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning and approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order/judgment dated 13.07.2023.
6. It is noted that the appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC along with the present appeal, seeking to bring on record certain additional documents. These documents include departmental note-sheets as well as information obtained under the RTI Act pertaining to the inclusion or exclusion of coal within the category of "industrial mineral." 6.1 However, we do not deem it necessary to examine the additional documents sought to be placed on record. It is a settled position of law that judicial interference in technical matters is limited, and where the tendering authority, after due deliberation, has taken a decision to consider the bid of a bidder as possessing the requisite experience, this Court cannot sit in appeal over such decision unless it is shown to be prima facie arbitrary, illegal, or so (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-666/2023] irrational that no prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion.
6.2 The learned Single Judge had the relevant material on record and upon consideration of the elaborate submissions advanced by all concerned parties, arrived at a reasoned and logical conclusion, with which we find ourselves in agreement.
6.3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the additional documents sought to be brought on record are not necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, particularly in relation to the issue concerning the consideration of the experience of respondent No. 4.
7. It is pertinent to note that the tender in question was awarded to respondent No. 4, being the L-1 bidder, and a Letter of Acceptance was issued on 17.07.2023, followed by an addendum dated 20.07.2023. The contract was awarded for a period of three years. Therefore, the period of contract is about to expire in few months. Meaning thereby, the contract is at its fag end. 7.1 It is further noted that this Court has, today, decided a writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15655/2024) involving the same tender, wherein the authorities have stated that the performance of the successful bidder, i.e., respondent No. 4, has been satisfactory after commencement of the work upon resolution of the law and order situation.
7.2 Therefore, taking into consideration the subsequent developments as well, this Court is of the opinion that the experience of respondent No. 4 in the transportation of coal has not adversely affected or downgraded its performance in the (Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM) (Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:13977-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-666/2023] execution of the present tender. For this reason as well, no interference is called for in the present Special Appeal.
8. In view of the above, the instant Special Appeal is dismissed.
9. Any pending applications stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
16-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 12:36:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 08:51:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)