Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ms Rps Rc Jv Ram Prasad Sharma vs State Of Raj And Ors on 9 July, 2018
Author: Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri
Bench: Kalpesh Satyendra Jhaveri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 663/2018
M/s Rps-Rc Jv Ram Prasad Sharma Rajasthan Communication,
Joint Venture , Having Its Head Office At Bharatpur And Branch
Office At Sainger Market, Baseri, Dholpur Rajasthan. Through
Authorized Signatory Ram Avtar Sharma S/o Shrikanheya Lal
Sharma, Age About 40 Years, R/o Nah Choti, Baseri, Dholpur
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary ,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Public Works Department Through Its Secretary ,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Public Works Department Road Through Its Chief
Engineer , Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Public Works Department, Zone Bharatpur Through Its
Additional Chief Engineer , Zone Bharatpur, Bharatpur
Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALPESH SATYENDRA JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 09/07/2018
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the writ petition and rejected the same declaring the petitioner to be non-responsive for the bid issued by Additional Chief Engineer, PWD Zone- Bharatpur.
(2 of 2) [SAW-663/2018]
2. While considering the case, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:-
"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that in the standard budding document placed on record by the petitioner, there is a requirement of construction experience in key activities which relate to road as well as the building. In the criteria relating to the buildings the requirement is of having experience of RCC with design mix through a batch mix plant No.M20, steel fabrication, steel centering and shuttering, stone masonry, brick masonry, joinery, doors, windows and reinforcement.
The work pointing as used in the statement relates to joinery i.e. the pointing area of the walls with the roof as has been accepted by the petitioner himself. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the evaluation and qualification criteria for pointing which is nothing else than joinery, was not included. It is also reflected from the document (Annexure-06) i.e. the statement of potential bid assessment that the petitioner himself has submitted his experience relating to pointing which comes to total 67.82.81 which is much less than the required criteria of 9248.39 square meters. In the circumstances, no case is made out by the petitioner, the action of the respondents in declaring it non responsive cannot be objected to or interfered."
3. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, no case is made out for interference.
4. The appeal as well as stay application stand dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J (K.S.JHAVERI),J Brijesh/8 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)