M/S Multitech Automation vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2025

[Cites 33, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Multitech Automation vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2025

1. In S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025, 341/2025, 369/2025, 370/2025 and 3502/2025, arguments were heard and concluded and the order was reserved on 25.03.2025 and in S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025, involving identical controversy, arguments were heard and concluded and the order was reserved on 26.03.2025. This batch of writ petitions involving identical controversy is being decided by this common order. The (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (4 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed with the following respective prayers:

In S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-A/24) passed by the Appellate Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-16) may also be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the respondent authorities may further be directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along with all consequential benefits.

(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (E-bid information No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item No.6 i.e. Solar Trade Panels and further proceedings pursuant thereto may be ordered to be cancelled.

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

In S.B.C.W.P. No.341/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) the impugned corrigendum dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-14 ) may be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-15) passed by respondent no. 02 may also be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the respondent authorities may further be directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along with all consequential benefits.

(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take any coercive action against the petitioner firm.

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (5 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

In S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) That the impugned corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A/14) may be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A/15) may also be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the respondent authorities may further be directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along with all consequential benefits.

(d) The financial bid and subsequent proceedings issued in favour of any other person, if any may kindly be set aside

(e) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.-2) (E-bid information No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item No.03 control and protection equipment and further proceedings pursuant thereto may be ordered to be cancelled.

(f) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take any coercive action against the petitioner firm.

(g) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

In S.B.C.W.P. No.370/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) the impugned corrigendum dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-13) may be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-14) passed by respondent no. 02 may also be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the respondent authorities may further be directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along with all consequential benefits.

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (6 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]

(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take any coercive action against the petitioner firm.

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances. of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

In S.B.C.W.P. No.3502/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-A/27) passed by the Appellate Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the revised technical evaluation dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure-16) may also be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the respondent authorities may further be directed to declare the petitioner as lowest bidder and award work order in favour of the petitioner firm along with all consequential benefits.

(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the NIT dated 25.09.2024 (E-bid information No. 01/2024-25) so far as it relates to item No.1 i.e. electrical panels and further proceedings pursuant thereto may be ordered to be cancelled.

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

In S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling records of the case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-A/20) passed by the Appellate Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(b) The impugned corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 (Annexure A/14) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(c) That the revised technical evaluation dated 06.12.2024 may also be quashed and set aside.

(d) That without prejudice to the above refer reliefs and in alternative the respondents may be ordered not to take any coercive action against the petitioner firm.

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (7 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]

(e) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. The Petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm, has preferred the S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025, 3502/2025 and 6362/2025 challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24) passed by Commissioner, Department of Skill, Employment and Entrepreneurship Secretariat, Jaipur, whereby the procurement entity has been given liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner as the petitioner stood blacklisted/debarred on the date of publication of the bid i.e., 25.09.2024 as per criterion prescribed at point no.4 of pre-qualification/eligibility criteria of Bid document (Although, in the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/

24) the date of publication of bid has been mentioned as 26.09.2024 but this court from the perusal of NIT (Annex.A/2) finds that the date of publication of bid is 25.09.2025); and also challenging the revised technical evaluation report (s) dated 05.12.2024/06.12.2024 whereby petitioner's bid qua Item Nos.6, 1 and 2 respectively have been held to be non-responsive. The petitioner has filed S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025 challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 and the corrigendum dated 05.12.2024 passed by Director (training), Directorate of Technical Education (Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur whereby NIT qua item Nos.4 and 11 has been cancelled. The petitioner has filed S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 challenging the corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 passed by Director (training), Directorate of Technical Education (Training) Rajasthan, Jodhpur as well as the revised technical evaluation report dated 06.12.2024, whereby the (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (8 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] petitioner's technical bid qua item no.3 of NIT has been held to be non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner has furnished false affidavit/declaration regarding blacklisting/debarment.

3. Although the instant writ petitions pertain to different items of the same NIT however, as all of these writ petitions involve identical issues, the same are being decided by this common order, and the facts of S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025 : M/s Multitech Automation vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., are being taken illustratively for the sake of convenience.

FACTS:

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent authorities issued a Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') on 25.09.2024 (Annex.A/2) inviting Bids for total 18 items from the dealers to supply machinery, tools, equipment, furniture etc. to various Government Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Rajasthan. One of the essential criteria, mentioned in the Bid document at Point No.4 of Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria was with regard to submission of Declaration in form of Annexure-

P to the effect that the bidder is not under investigation/charged/prosecuted/debarred/ blacklisted/ declared having dis-satisfactory performance by any State or Central Government/Semi-Government Organization etc. for supply of material out operations and maintenance work as on the date of publication of the NIT dated 25.09.2024. And as per Point No.5 of Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria an affidavit in form of Annexure-Q was also required to be furnished to the effect that the information furnished by the bidder in the bid is correct and (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (9 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] the bidder shall be solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false information in the Bid.

5. The petitioner firm was, however, ordered to be blacklisted by Agriculture University Jodhpur vide order dated 17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6) (hereinafter as 'blacklisting order') for a period of three years on account of non-satisfactory performance of obligation. In the writ petition, it has been pleaded that the said blacklisting order was never communicated to the petitioner firm and the petitioner came to know of passing of such order on 10.10.2024 i.e. only after issuance of the NIT in question. The petitioner after coming to know of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/

6), preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.17105/2024 while stating that the blacklisting order (Annex.A/

6) was never communicated to the petitioner firm nor was it ever provided an opportunity of being heard. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was granted by a co-ordinate bench of this court on 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) while staying the effect and operation of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6) to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner firm.

6. Subsequent to the passing of the interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9), the petitioner firm submitted its bid qua Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11 along with relevant Declaration/affidavit before the respondent authorities on 21.10.2024.

7. After submission of the Bids, on a complaint made by other bidder i.e., M/s Technosys Systems, a communication dated 20.11.2024 via e-mail was received by the petitioner seeking (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (10 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] clarification as to why order of blacklisting (Annex.A/6) against the petitioner was not disclosed in the Bid document. On receipt of the communication dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner on 24.11.2024 submitted clarification that on the date of issuance of the NIT, the petitioner was not in the knowledge of blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 and even otherwise vide an interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed in SBCWP No.17105/2024 the effect and operation of order dated 17.01.2023 was stayed to the extent of blacklisting the petitioner firm.

8. Thereafter, the respondent Department on 29.11.2024 opened the Technical Bid declaring the petitioner as technically qualified/responsive qua item nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 11. However, the private respondent No.4 (M/s Technosys Systems) preferred appeal before the Commissioner of the respondent Department (first appellate authority) feeling aggrieved of declaration of petitioner's Technical Bid as responsive qua item Nos.1 and 6. It is the case of the petitioner that though it was impleaded as party respondent in the appeal, however, the petitioner was not served with any notice of the appellate proceedings and it was also not given an opportunity of hearing in the said proceedings.

9. Thereafter, the Director (Training) of the respondent Department, who according to the pleadings of the petitioner was not competent to hear appeal, proceeded to hear the appeal ex- parte against the petitioner and passed the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) whereby the petitioner firm was declared non-responsive qua Item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 of the NIT and the NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 was cancelled. The (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (11 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] respondent authorities thereafter, in compliance of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15), issued revised technical evaluation report dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), whereby, the petitioner's technical bid was held to be non-responsive qua item no.6. The respondent authorities thereafter, proceeded to open Financial Bid in favour of private respondent, while treating it to be lowest bidder for the purpose of execution of the work. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a Second appeal against the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15), which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2024.

10. Aggrieved by orders dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) and 24.12.2024, as also revised technical evaluation report dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.350/2025. The said writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions viz. CWP Nos.326/2025 (qua Item no.1) and 365/2025 (qua item no.2) and the orders dated 24.12.2024 and 05.12.2024 passed by earlier first and second appellate authorities were set aside and the writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/

21) by a coordinate bench of this court while directing the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

11. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/21), the petitioner appeared before the Commissioner and submitted its written submission.

12. The appellate authority after considering the arguments and material placed before it, vide order impugned dated 29.01.2025 (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (12 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] (Annex.A/24) proceeded to hold the petitioner ineligible as it stood blacklisted/debarred on the date of publication of the NIT i.e. 25.09.2024 as per criterion prescribed at point no.4 of the pre- qualification/eligibility criteria of the Bid document.

13. Aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24) passed by the first appellate authority as well as the revised technical evaluation report dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/16), the petitioner has preferred the S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025. For the sake of better understanding the relevant information pertaining to all the instant writ petitions and the respective orders impugned is being extracted in a tabular form as under:

S,No. W.P. No. Item No. of NIT Impugned Order (s) Appellate Order dt. 29.01.2025

1. S.B.C.W.P. No.3497/2025 6 and Revised Technical Evaluation Report dt.05.12.2024 Corrigendum dt.05.12.2024 and 2. S.B.C.W.P. No.341/2025 4 Appellate order dt.05.12.2024 Corrigendum dt.06.12.2024 and

3. S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 3 Revised Technical Evaluation dt.06.12.2024 Corrigendum dt.05.12.2024 and 4. S.B.C.W.P. No.370/2025 11 Appellate order dt.05.12.2024 Appellate order dt.29.01.2025 and

5. S.B.C.W.P. No.3502/2025 1 Revised Technical Evaluation Report dt.06.12.2024 Appellate order dt.29.01.2025, Corrigendum dt.06.12.2024 and 6. S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025 2 Revised Technical Evaluation Report dt.06.12.2024 SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex.A/24) has been passed without application of mind as the contentions raised by the petitioner therein were not considered by the respondent authorities, thus, (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (13 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] the same is against the principle of natural justice. He also submitted that the first appellate authority (Commissioner) has erred in disposing of the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to establish its case whereas the appeal was filed by M/s Technosys Systems and obligation was upon it to establish the case and not on the petitioner. He also submitted that in three matters pertaining to bid submitted by the petitioner qua Item No.1, 2 and 6 of the NIT, the first appellate authority (commissioner) has already taken a view while relying upon the orders of earlier first appellate authority (Director) and Second appellate authority which were already quashed and set aside vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/21) by the coordinate bench of this court in earlier round of litigation, thus, filing a second appeal against the same would have been a futile exercise and for the same reasons, no efficacious alternative remedy of first appeal is available to the petitioner in the matters arising out of rejection of bid qua item no. 4, 11 and 3 as well. He also submitted that the respondent authorities have already went on to issue work order for certain items of the NIT, thus, the petitioner cannot be forced to avail the alternative remedy. He also submitted that though the NIT qua item no.4 and 11 have been cancelled but the writ petitions in respect to those would become infructuous only for the purpose of grant of work order and not for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) passed by first appellate authority (Director) qua item no.4 and 11 of the NIT whereby petitioner was disqualified as the same may cause prejudice to the petitioner in the future (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (14 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] tender process. He also submitted that no reason for the cancellation of NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 have been provided by the respondent authority, which is required under Section 26 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter as 'RTPP Act').

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that vide interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) the effect and operation of the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6) was stayed hence, by virtue of interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9), which would apply retrospectively, the blacklisting order (Annex.A/6) would be deemed to be non-existent as if it was never passed. He also submitted that the date of submitting affidavit is relevant and not the date of notarizing it, however, the appellate authority has misconstrued the effect of a document getting attested by a notary and execution of the document. He, thus, submitted that since the declaration/affidavit in the present case was furnished on 21.10.2024 i.e. after passing of the interim order on the same day, the contents of the same cannot be said to be devoid of its veracity.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while adverting to Point No.4 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/ Eligibility Criteria of the Bid Document, submitted that the eligibility of the Bidder is required to be considered as on the date of issuance of NIT i.e. 25.09.2024 and till that date, the petitioner was not aware of the blacklisting order being passed against it and therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. He also submitted, while relying upon Rule 39 (3) of the Rajasthan Transparancy in Public Procurement (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (15 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] Rules, 2013 (hereinafter as 'RTPP Rules'), that the blacklisting order passed by Agriculture Jodhpur, University would not debar the petitioner from participating in the NIT as Rule 39 (3) clearly stipulates that a bidder would be ineligible for participating in any procurement process undertaken by any procuring entity if debarred by the State Government or in any procurement process undertaken by a procuring entity if it has been debarred by such procuring entity, however, in the instant case the petitioner was neither debarred by the State Government nor by the procuring entity which has issued the NIT in the present case, thus, the petitioner was eligible to participate in the procurement process initiated vide NIT (Annex.A/2). He also submitted, while drawing attention of this court towards the blacklisting order passed by the Agricultural University, Jodhpur that the said blacklisting order specifically states that the petitioner would be ineligible to participate only in any future tender process issued by the Agricultural University and its subsidiaries, thus, the said blacklisting order is of no consequences in the instant case as the procuring entity is different.

17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the appeal was filed by the M/s Technosys Systems only qua two items of the NIT i.e., Item 1 and 6 however, the procuring authority while deciding the matter has went on to revise its own earlier decision whereby the petitioner was held responsive and held the petitioner non-responsive in item nos.2, 3 as well along with item nos.1 and 6 and cancelled the NIT qua Item No.4 and 11, which amounts to reviewing its own decision and the same is (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (16 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] not permissible as the RTPP Act or the RTPP Rules does not provide for the power of review to the procuring authority.

18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments; Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU & Ors. v. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. :

(2009) 11 SCR 953, Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (1985) 4 SCC 404, Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite & Company Ltd. & Ors. : (2002) 2 SCC 290, Amar Singh & Ors. v.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : AIR 1995 Raj. 151, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. : (2014) 9 SCC 263, Manoharlal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : (2012) 13 SCC 14, D.R. Rathna Murthy v. Ramappa : (2011) 1 SCC 158, Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain & Ors. : (1975) 2 SCC 159, Chhagni Ram Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2017 (2) WLN 43 (Raj.), Sitements Eng. & Manfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR 1976 SC 1785, Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor :

(1973) 2 SCC 836, Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v.

Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji : (1971) 3 SCC 844, Tarachand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : MANU/RH/1047/1993, S.D.G. Pandarasannidi v. State of Madras : AIR 1965 SC 1578 and Kanishk Sinha & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. :

MANU/SC/0271/2025.

SUBMISSION BY LEARNED AG:

19. Per contra, learned Advocate General ('AG') appearing on behalf of the respondent State submitted that though various preliminary objections have been raised in the reply, however, he does not want to press the preliminary objection raised with (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (17 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] respect to availability of statutory remedy of filing appeal to the petitioner under Section 38 (4) of the Act of 2012 and therefore, the matter may be decided on merits.

20. Learned AG while justifying the order impugned submitted that the order impugned dated 29.01.2025 has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, there was strict compliance of principles of natural justice.

21. Learned AG submitted that the RTPP Act has been enacted for ensuring transparency in the public procurement process, hence, the same is an administrative process and not a quasi-

judicial function, hence the procuring entity can revise/review its own administrative decisions at any time.

22. Learned AG further submitted that as per Section 7 of the RTPP Act the procuring authority may prescribe additional criteria in the tender document and in the present case the procuring entity has prescribed a criterion at Point No.4 of Pre-qualification/ Eligibility Criteria, stipulating that the bidder must submit a declaration to the effect that it has not been debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any organization functional under Central/State Government and this information ought to be current as on the date of publication of bid. He also submitted that criterion prescribed at point no.4 is in addition to the qualification criteria as provided under Rule 39 of the RTPP Rules and not in derogation of the same. He also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the criterion prescribed at Point no.4 of the bid document in the instant writ petitions. He thus, submitted while relying on criterion prescribed at Point No.4 of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (18 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria of Bid document that as on the date of publication of NIT i.e. on 25.09.2024, the petitioner stood debarred/blacklisted vide order dated 17.01.2023 for a period of three years, however, the petitioner submitted false affidavit and declaration at the time of submitting the bids while concealing such blacklisting order, therefore, the petitioner was rightly held non-responsive.

23. Learned AG, while drawing attention of the Court towards the declaration and affidavit submitted in form of Annexure P & Q respectively along with the respective bids, submitted that the petitioner has given false information that it is not under investigation /charged/ prosecuted/ debarred/ blacklisted/ declared having dissatisfactory performance by any State or Central Government/Semi-Government Organization/autonomous body/ PSUs of Central/State Government/quasi Government authority in India for supply of materials out operations and maintenance work. He further submitted that even though the blacklisting order was stayed on 21.10.2024, the petitioner was otherwise required to disclose the said fact in the declaration and affidavit filed along with the Bid document (Annex.P & Q), however, the petitioner has deliberately not submitted the said information and it was only when clarification was sought from the petitioner, the petitioner for the first time apprised the respondents about passing of interim order staying the effect and operation of blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023. He also submitted that the interim order dated 21.10.2024 would not wipe out the blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 as the petitioner stood (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (19 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] disqualified as on the date of publication of the NIT. He also submitted that Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules provides that the procuring entity shall disqualify a bidder if it finds at any time that the information submitted, concerning the qualification of the bidder either constituted a misrepresentation or was materially inaccurate or incomplete, hence, the authorities have rightly disqualified the petitioner as it has submitted false declaration.

24. Learned AG also submitted that S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025 have become infructuous as the NIT in respect to work in question i.e., Item Nos.4 and 11, have already been cancelled and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard does not have any force. SUBMISSIONS BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT-M/s TECHNOSYS SYSTEMS:

25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Private respondent- M/s Technosys Systems in S.B.C.W.P.Nos.3497/2025 and 3502/2025 submitted that the petitioner has approached this court without exhausting the statutory remedy of filing appeal, therefore, the writ petitions are not even maintainable. He further submitted, while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India : (1994) 6 SCC 651, that a writ court should not interfere in the contractual matters concerning Government contracts. He further submitted that the petitioner produced false affidavit, oath certificate and has concealed material facts from the procuring entity and the said fact was admitted by the petitioner itself before the second appellate authority.

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (20 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]

26. Learned counsel for the private respondent-M/s Technosys Systems further submitted, while relying upon Sections 7 (d) and 25 of the RTPP Act and Rule 38 (1) of the RTPP Rules, that the petitioner was rightly disqualified by the respondent authorities as it stood blacklisted as on the date of publication of NIT. He also submitted that the writ petitions- S.B.C.W.P. Nos.3497/2025 and 3502/2025 have been filed after issuance of work order in favour of respondent No.4 (M/s Technosys Systems), and the respondent No.4 has already proceeded with execution of work and letter of intent has also been issued in its favour.

27. Learned counsel for the private respondent- M/s Technosys Systems further submitted that the effect of interim order dated 21.10.2024 passed in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is prospective in nature and the same cannot be said to be having retrospective effect for the interregnum period i.e. from 17.01.2023 to 21.10.2024 and, therefore, the procuring entity has rightly held petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive. He further submitted that the petitioner having participated in the tender process cannot be permitted to question any of the criteria of the Bid by way of filing the writ petition. In support of arguments, he has relied upon following case laws: Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. v. Northeast Frontier Railway & ors. : 2014 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 146, Abeinsa Infraestrcuturas Medio Ambienete, S.A. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2016 (1) WLC (Raj.) 735, Tata Cellurlar v. Union of India : (1994) 6 SCC 651, Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa & Ors. : (2007) 14 SCC 517, National High Speed rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd. & Ors. : AIR 2022 SC 866, (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (21 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. :

2015 2 Supreme 423 and M/s Ind-Swift Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2254/2012 decided on 21.02.2012 at Jaipur Bench.

SUBMISSIONS BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT-M/s PURI SCIENTIFIC WORKS:

28. Learned counsel for private respondent-M/s Puri Scientific Works in S.B.CWP No.369/2025 submitted that the same is not maintainable considering the narrow scope of judicial review in contractual matters. He also submitted that the petitioner having stood blacklisted/debarred vide order dated 17.01.2023 was not eligible to participate in the NIT in view of pre-qualification/eligibility criteria mentioned at Point no.4. He also submitted that the petitioner has furnished false information in affidavit/declaration and the same was a ground for disqualification as per Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules, hence, the petitioner has rightly been held ineligible. He placed reliance on:

Tata Motors Ltd. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) & Ors. : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 467.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:

29. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at bar. After taking into account the submission made by the learned Advocate General that he does not wish to press on the issue of alternative remedy and that matters may finally be decided on merits, this court deems it appropriate to finally decide the instant writ petitions on merit.

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (22 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]

30. The controversy in the instant writ petitions centers around the decision of the respondent authorities in holding the petitioner's technical bid non-responsive on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish correct information in the declaration regarding the blacklisting/debarment, which was required to be submitted as per criterion mentioned at Point No.4 of the Pre- Qualification/Eligibility Criteria and the submission of false affidavit regarding the information furnished in the bidding document, which was required to be submitted as per criterion prescribed at Point No.5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria.

31. This court finds that the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders, wherein the petitioner has been disqualified and its technical bid has been held to be non-responsive for submission of incorrect information in affidavit/declaration, while concealing the blacklisting/debarment order dated 17.01.2023 passed by Agriculture University, Jodhpur against it, information in respect of which was required to be furnished along with the bid document as per the criterion prescribed at Point Nos.4 of the Pre- Qualification/Eligibility Criteria.

32. As per the E-Bid Information No.1/2024-25 dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.A/2), the cut-off date for submission of bid was 21.10.2024. And, as per Point No.4 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, the bidder was required to submit a declaration to the effect that it has not been debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any organization functional under central/State Government and such declaration ought to be current as on the date of publication of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (23 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] bid, which in the present case is 25.09.2024. The said criterion at Point No.4 is reproduced as under:

"The bidder must have to submit a Declaration for not having been debarred/blacklisted either by the any Bid Inviting Authority or by any organization functional under Central/State government. The bid will be rejected without this document. This statement ought to be current as of the date the bid was published"

33. Further, as per Point no.5 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, a bidder was required to furnish an affidavit to the effect that correct information has been submitted by the bidder in the bid and he shall be solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false information in the bid. The said criterion at Point No.5 is reproduced as under:

"The bidder shall furnish an affidavit to the effect that the correct information has been furnished in the Bid and the bidder shall be solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false information in the bid. The bid will be rejected without this document."

34. It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6) the petitioner stood debarred/blacklisted for a period of three years. The petitioner submitted Bid document on 21.10.2024 along with declaration and affidavit (Annex.P & Q of the Bid document) while stating that the petitioner is not under investigation/charged/prosecuted/debarred/blacklisted/ declared having dissatisfactory performance by any state or Central Government/Semi Govt. organization/autonomous body/PSUs of central/State Government/quasi government authority in India for supply of materials out operations and maintenance work. The relevant portion of the declaration (Annex.A/5) is reproduced as under: -

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (24 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] "With reference to above mention subject, we hereby declare that Multitech Automation 560-B, 8th C Road Sardarpura Jodhpur 342003 Rajasthan (Name of firm) is not under investigation/charged/prosecuted/ debarred/blacklisted/declared having dissatisfactory performance by any state or central government/semi Govt. organization/autonomous boy/PSUs of central/State Government/quasi government authority in India for supply of materials out operations and maintenance work."

35. Further, the relevant portion of the affidavit (Annex.A/4) which was submitted by the petitioner in compliance of criterion prescribed at Point No.5 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, is extracted as under:

"With reference to above mention subject: We hereby declare that. Multitech Automation 560-B, 8th C Road Sardarpura Jodhpur 342003 Rajasthan (Name of Firm) our company has furnished the correct information in the tender and we solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false information In the bid."

36. Thus, as per the contents of the declaration and affidavit, it is projected that as on the date of notarizing the said affidavit and declaration dated 19.10.2024, the petitioner firm was not debarred/blacklisted, whereas the fact is that as on the date of publication of the NIT i.e., 25.09.2024, the petitioner stood blacklisted/debarred vide order dated 17.01.2023 and hence, the petitioner was required to furnish the correct information in the declaration as prescribed at Point No.4 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria. It is also important to note that the petitioner did not furnish the copy of interim order dated 21.10.2024 to the respondent authorities while submitting the bid document and the same was only supplied by the petitioner for the first time on 24.11.2024 in pursuance of clarification dated (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (25 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] 20.11.2024 (Annex.10) sought by the respondent authority. Further, the petitioner has justified the information furnished in the declaration and affidavit to be correct mainly on the basis of the contention that vide the interim order dated 21.10.2024 the effect and operation of the blacklisting order was stayed, and since the said interim order would be applicable retrospectively and would wipe out the earlier blacklisting/debarment order hence, as the declaration and affidavit were submitted along with the bid document subsequent to passing of this interim order, the information submitted therein was correct. This contention of the petitioner is not sustainable as the effect of the interim order will come into existence as on the date of passing of interim order and shall not have any retrospective effect unless otherwise expressed in the order itself, which is not the case here. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that date of submission of affidavit is relevant and not the date on which it was notarized, is not sustainable as criterion prescribed at Point No.4 specifically stipulated that the statement submitted in the declaration ought to be current as on the date of publication of bid i.e., 25.09.2024, and on the date of notarizing as well as on the date of submission of the declaration and affidavit, the petitioner was well aware that it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of publication of the NIT i.e., 25.09.2024, however, despite that the petitioner chose to submit affidavit and declaration dated 19.10.2024 while projecting that it was neither blacklisted/debarred as on the date of publication of NIT i.e., 25.05.2024. It is also important to note that vide interim order (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (26 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] dated 21.10.2024, the effect and operation of the order dated 17.01.2023 was stayed only qua the blacklisting and not qua the debarment, thus, the petitioner clearly stood debarred even otherwise. The relevant portions of blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6) as well as interim order dated 21.10.2024 (Annex.A/9) are reproduced as under:

17.01.2023 (Annex.A/6):

"अतः कान्ट्र े ट/बोली की शर्तों के अनुसार बतौर शास्ति फर्म द्वारा जमा Secuurity Deposit राशि रूपये 33950/- को जब्त (Forefeit) की जाती है एवं राजस्थान लोक उपापन में पारदर्शिता अधिनियम 2012 की धरा 46 (4) के अन्तर्गत फर्म मैसर्स मल्टी टे क ओटोमेशन 560 बी, सी रोड़ सरदारपुरा जोधपुर राजस्थान एवं सहबद्ध फर्मों को इस विश्वविद्यालय एवं अधीनस्थ इकाईयों द्वारा की जाने वाली उपापन प्रक्रिया में भाग लेने के लिए 3 वर्ष की कालावधि के लिए विवर्जित (Debar & Black Listed) घोषित किया जाता है ।"

21.10.2024(Annex.A/9):

"Meanwhile, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.01.2023 to the extent it relates to blacklisting of the petitioner shall remain stayed."

36.1. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the blacklisting order dated 17.01.2023 was of no consequences in the NIT in question as the petitioner became ineligible to participate only in any future tender process issued by the Agricultural University and its subsidiaries, is not sustainable for the reason that as per the criterion prescribed at point no.4 of the Pre-qualification/Eligibility criteria petitioner was required to submit a declaration to the effect that it has not been debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any organization functional under central/State Government. Further, it is important to note that the petitioner was disqualified while concluding that it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (27 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] publication of bid on account of furnishing incorrect information in declaration and the affidavit.

37. The counsel for the petitioner has raised yet another contention that the petitioner cannot be disqualified from participating in the instant NIT as Rule 39 (3) of the Rules of 2013 puts embargo only upon participation in any procurement process undertaken by any procuring entity if debarred by the State Government or by the bid inviting authority itself and inasmuch as the blacklisting order in the instant case was passed by a different procuring entity which is not State Government. Before, dealing with this contention, this court finds it appropriate to refer to Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rules 38 and 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules. Section 7 of the RTPP Act is reproduced as under:

"7. Qualifications of bidders.- (1) A procuring entity may determine and apply one or more of the requirements specified in sub-section (2) for a bidder to be qualified for participating in a procurement process.

(2) Any bidder participating in the procurement process shall-

(a) possess the necessary professional, technical, financial and managerial resources and competence required by the bidding documents, pre-qualification documents or bidder registration documents, as the case may be, issued by the procuring entity;

(b) have fulfilled his obligation to pay such of the taxes payable to the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority as may be specified in the bidding documents, pre-qualification documents or bidder registration documents;

(c) not be insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or being wound up, not have its affairs administered by a court or a judicial officer, not have its business activities suspended and must not be the subject of legal proceedings for any of the foregoing reasons;

(d) not have, and their directors and officers not have, been convicted of any criminal offence related to their professional conduct or the making of false statements or misrepresentations as to their (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (28 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] qualifications to enter into a procurement contract within a period of three years preceding the commencement of the procurement process, or not have been otherwise disqualified pursuant to debarment proceedings;

(e) not have a conflict of interest as may be prescribed and specified in the pre-qualification documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, which materially affects fair competition;

(f) fulfil any other qualifications as may be prescribed.

(3) Subject to the right of bidders to protect their intellectual property or trade secrets the procuring entity may require a bidder to provide any such information or declaration as it considers necessary to make an evaluation in accordance with sub-section (1).

(4) Any requirement established pursuant to this section shall be set out in the pre-qualification documents or bidder registration documents, if any, and in the bidding documents and shall apply equally to all bidders.

(5) The procuring entity shall evaluate the qualifications of bidders only in accordance with the requirement specified in this section."

Thus, it is evident from the perusal of Section 7 (1) that the procuring entity may determine and apply one or more of the requirements specified in Section 7 (2) for a bidder to be qualified for participating in a procurement process. Section 7 (2)(d) in unambiguous terms stipulates that the bidder participating in the procurement process shall not have been disqualified pursuant to debarment proceedings. Further, Section 7 (2) (f) of the RTPP Act clearly stipulates that the bidder shall fulfill any other qualifications as may be prescribed. Further, Section 7 (4) provides that any requirement established pursuant to Section 7 shall be set out in the pre-qualification documents/bidder registration documents, if any, and in the bidding documents and shall apply to all bidders equally.

37.1. Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules is reproduced as under: (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (29 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025]

"38. Qualification of bidders.- In addition to the provisions regarding qualification of bidders as set out in section 7,-

(a) the procuring entity shall disqualify a bidder if it finds at any time that,-

(i) the information submitted, concerning the qualifications of the bidder, was false or constituted a misrepresentation; or

(ii) the information submitted, concerning the qualifications of the bidder, was materially inaccurate or incomplete; and

(b) the procuring entity may require a bidder, who was pre-qualified, to demonstrate its qualifications again in accordance with the same criteria used to prequalify such bidder. The procuring entity shall disqualify any bidder that fails to demonstrate its qualifications again, if requested to do so. The procuring entity shall promptly notify each bidder requested to demonstrate its qualifications again as to whether or not the bidder has done so to the satisfaction of the procuring entity." Thus, conjoint reading of Section 7 (2)(f) and Rule 38 makes it evident that, this rule has been made for prescribing additional qualification for bidders apart from the requirements already set out in Section 7 (2). Rule 38 (a), thus, empowers the procuring entity to disqualify a bidder at any time if it finds that the information submitted by such bidder regarding its qualification was false or constituted misrepresentation or if such information was materially inaccurate or incomplete.

37.2. In the present case the respondent authority, as per the mandate of Section 7 (4), has prescribed the criteria at Point Nos.4 and 5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, which are in consonance with Section 7(2)(d) of the RTPP Act and Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules, and as per these criteria the bidders were required to submit a declaration for not having been debarred/blacklisted either by any bid inviting authority or by any (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (30 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] organization functional under the Central/State Government as on the date of publication of NIT i.e., 25.09.2024 and were also required to submit the affidavit to the effect that the information furnished in the bid is correct and the bidder shall be solely responsible for furnishing wrong/false information. 37.3. This court also takes into consideration Rule 39 of the RTPP Rules and the same is reproduced as under:

"39. Eligibility of bidders.- (1) A bidder may be a natural person, private entity, government owned entity or, where permitted in the bidding documents, any combination of them with a formal intent to enter into an agreement or under an existing agreement in the form of a Joint Venture. In the case of a Joint Venture: -

(a) all parties to the Joint Venture shall sign the bid and they shall be jointly and severally liable; and

(b) a Joint Venture shall nominate a representative who shall have the authority to conduct all business for and on behalf of any or all the parties of the Joint Venture during the bidding process. In the event the bid of Joint Venture is accepted, either they shall form a registered Joint Venture company/firm or otherwise all the parties to Joint Venture shall sign the Agreement.

(2) A bidder should not have a conflict of interest in the procurement in question as stated in rule 81 and the bidding documents. The procuring entity shall take appropriate actions against the bidder in accordance with section 11 and Chapter IV of the Act, if it determines that a conflict of interest has flawed the integrity of any procurement process. All bidders found to have a conflict of interest shall be disqualified.

(3) A bidder debarred under section 46 shall not be eligible to participate in any procurement process undertaken by,-

(a) any procuring entity, if debarred by the State Government; and

(b) a procuring entity if debarred by such procuring entity.

(4) In case of procurement of goods, bidder must be a manufacturer, distributor or bona-fide dealer in the goods and it shall furnish necessary proof for the same in the specified format. Where applicable, proof of authorisation (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (31 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] by the manufacturer or country distributor in India, shall be enclosed."

Thus, the bare perusal of Rule 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules makes it evident that the said rule provides that a bidder shall not be eligible to participate in procurement process in certain circumstances as mentioned thereunder. Further, conjoint reading of Section 7 (2) of the RTPP Act, Rules 38 and 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules makes it evident that Rule 39 (3) of the RTPP Rules could not be construed in the manner that it puts restriction on the discretion of the procuring entity from prescribing any other qualification criteria which it has been expressly empowered under Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner was required to fulfill the criteria as prescribed at Point Nos.4 and 5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria, and having failed to fulfill the said criteria, the respondent authorities were justified and having a right to disqualify the petitioner. It is also important to note here that the petitioner has not challenged the criterion prescribed at Point No.4 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria or for that matter any other criteria prescribed thereunder and was well aware of such criteria at the time of participating in the procurement process.

38. As far as the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authority's action in revising its own earlier decision amounts to review of its own orders and the RTPP Act or the RTPP Rules do not provide for the power of review, is (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (32 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] concerned this court deems it appropriate to refer to Section 25 of the RTPP Act. Section 25 of the RTPP Act is reproduced as under:

"25. Exclusion of bids.- (1) A procuring entity shall exclude a bid if-

(a) the bidder is not qualified in terms of section 7;

(b) the bid materially departs from the requirements specified in the bidding documents or it contains false information;

(c) the bidder submitting the bid, his agent or any one acting on his behalf, gave or agreed to give, to any officer or employee of the procuring entity or other governmental authority a gratification in any form, or any other thing of value, so as to unduly influence the procurement process;

(d) a bidder, in the opinion of the procuring entity, has a conflict of interest materially affecting fair competition.

(2) A bid shall be excluded as soon as the cause for its exclusion is discovered.

(3) Every decision of a procuring entity to exclude a bid shall be for reasons to be recorded in writing. (4) Every decision of the procuring entity under sub- section (3) shall be -

(a) communicated to the concerned bidder in writing;

(b) published on the State Public Procurement Portal."

Thus, bare perusal of Section 25 (1) (a) and (b) makes it evident that a procuring entity is empowered to exclude a bid if the bidder is not qualified in terms of Section 7 or if the bid materially departs from the requirement specified in the bidding documents or contains false information and in the present case the petitioner has apparently given false declaration/information by way of affidavit and declaration. Further, Section 25 (2) stipulates that a bid shall be excluded as soon as the cause for its exclusion is discovered. Sections 25 (3) provides that the reasons for exclusion of bid shall be recorded in writing and Section 25 (4) (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (33 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] provides that every decision made under Section 25 (3) shall be communicated to the bidder in writing and shall be published on the State Public Procurement Portal.

38.1. In the present case initially the petitioner was held responsive on 29.10.2024 qua Item Nos.1,2,3,4,6, and 11 after seeking due clarification from the petitioner regarding the blacklisting/debarment order dated 17.01.2023. However, pursuant to the decision of first appellate authority (Director) in an appeal filed by M/s Technosys Systems qua Item No.1 and 6, the respondent authority revised its own earlier decision and held the petitioner non-responsive qua Item Nos.2 and 3 too along with item nos. 1 and 6 and cancelled the NIT qua Item No.4 and 11. As already have been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down vide Point Nos.4 and 5 of the Pre-Bid Qualification/Eligibility Criteria (Which are in consonance with Section 7 of the RTPP Act as well as Rule 38 of the RTPP Rules), and therefore, after coming to know of the cause of exclusion, the respondent authority was justified in excluding the bid of the petitioner qua Item Nos.2 and 3 as well. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable.

39. This court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025 finds that the same pertain to Item Nos.4 and 11 respectively, and the NIT qua both these Items have already been cancelled by the respondent authority. Thus, by virtue of the same both these writ petitions have become infructuous. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that these writ (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (34 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] petitions have become infructuous only for the purpose of award of work order however would still survive in respect to the petitioner being disqualified and also in respect to cancellation of the tender process, which has been done without giving any reason as mandated under Section 26 of the RTPP Act. This court finds that Section 26 of the RTPP Act stipulates that a procuring entity may cancel the procurement process any time before the acceptance of successful bid for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the respondent authority has cancelled the NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 due to technical and unavoidable reasons and though, the reasons may not appear to be cogent but in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (15.09.2016 - SC) : MANU/SC/1003/2016, unless such decisions meet threshold of mala fide, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity, the constitutional court are to restrain from interfering with the such decisions. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under:

"13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision.

14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India MANU/SC/0048/1979 : (1979) 3 SCC 489 was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (35 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] treated as redundant or superfluous-they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word 'metro' in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked.

15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

16. In the present appeals, although there does not appear to be any ambiguity or doubt about the interpretation given by NMRCL to the tender conditions, we are of the view that even if there was such an ambiguity or doubt, the High Court ought to have refrained from giving its own interpretation unless it had come to a clear conclusion that the interpretation given by NMRCL was perverse or mala fide or intended to favour one of the bidders. This was certainly not the case either before the High Court or before this Court."

Thus, mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority should not be a reason for a constitutional court to interfere in the tender process. And the threshold of malafides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional court interferes with the decision making process. In the present case the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this court that such decision of cancellation was made with malafide or with intention to favour someone. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (36 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] this regard is not sustainable. Even otherwise, the contention raised by the petitioner in this respect is not sustainable for another reason that the NIT qua Item Nos.4 and 11 itself have been cancelled, thus, no purpose whatsoever survives in respect to these Items of the NIT.

40. As far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non- application of mind and violation of principle of natural justice by the respondent authority while passing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner in the pleadings has specifically mentioned that it appeared before the first appellate authority (Commissioner) and submitted a detailed written submission and thereafter, the respondent authority after application of mind and on the basis of material available before it has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any new document/evidence to make him eligible and it stood blacklisted/debarred as on the date of publication of bid i.e., 25.09.2024 as per the criterion mentioned at Point No.4 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria. The relevant part of the order dated 29.01.2025 is reproduced as under:

"All the parties were heard at length, the documents submitted by them and the reply submitted by opposite parties, RTPP, Act 2012 and RTPP Rule, 2013 were carefully examined.

The firm has not produced any new document/evidence to the appellate authority which make him eligible for the procurement process. By perusal of the document presented before the authority, it is evident that the firm was blacklisted/debarred on the date of publication of the bid i.e.26-09-2024 [Sic] as per prequalification/eligibility criteria mentioned on Sr No.4 of page 08 of the bid document issued by the department (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (37 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] i.e. procurement entity, which was mandatory condition for all the bidders. The procurement entity is free to take appropriate action against the defaulter firm as per the provisions of RTPP Act 2012 and other relevant acts and rules.

The grounds stated by M/s Multitech Automation, Jodhpur are devoid of merit hence no action is warranted in favour of M/s Multitech Automation, Jodhpur.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The copy of decision should be given to concern parties free of cost.

The decision is issued today Dated 29/01/2025"

Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not tenable as the order is a well reasoned order and has been passed after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity of hearing. Further, the contention raised by counsel of the petitioner that first appellate authority (Commissioner) has erred in disposing of the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to establish its case whereas the appeal was filed by M/s Technosys Systems and obligation was upon it to establish its case, is not sustainable as even if the appeal was filed by M/s Technosys Systems, it was upon the petitioner to establish that it (petitioner) has not furnished incorrect information in the declaration and affidavit.

41. Furthermore, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 3497/2025, 3502/2025 and 6362/2025 (Item nos.6, 1 and 2 of the NIT respectively) finds that the petitioner has also challenged the respective revised technical evaluation reports dated 05.12.2024/06.12.2024. However, it is seen from the perusal of these respective reports that they have been issued in compliance of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15) passed by the first appellate authority (Director), which has already been quashed (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (38 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] and set aside qua Item Nos.6, 1 and 2 vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annex.A/15) passed by a coordinate bench of this court in S.B.C.W.P. Nos.350/2025, 326/2025 and 365/2025. Therefore, in such circumstances no adjudication is required as far as prayer for quashing and setting aside of the technical evaluation reports dated 05.12.2024/06.12.2024 is concerned. And for same reason the prayer made by the petitioner in S.B.C.W.P. No.6362/2025 with respect to quashing and setting aside of corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 is not required to be adjudicated.

42. This court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 (Item no.3 of the NIT) finds that the petitioner has challenged the corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 and the revised technical evaluation report dated 06.12.2024. However, it is seen that the revised technical evaluation report dated 06.12.2024 has been issued in compliance of order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15), which has not been challenged by the petitioner before this court. Thus, in such circumstances it has rendered the prayer qua the quashing and setting aside of corrigendum dated 06.12.2024 as well as revised technical report dated 06.12.2024 otiose and any relief, if granted, would become ineffectual.

43. Thus, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 3497/2025, 3502/2025 and 6362/2025 (Item nos.6, 1 and 2 of the NIT respectively) finds that the petitioner firm has failed to disclose correct information in the declaration and affidavit at the time of submitting the bid and has concealed the blacklisting/debarment order dated 07.01.2023, which was required to be disclosed as per (Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:16502 qua CW 3497/2025 & (39 of 39) [CW-3497/2025] connected matters] [2025:RJ-JD:16514 qua CW 6362/2025] criteria prescribed at Point Nos.4 and 5 of the Pre-Qualification/Eligibility Criteria of the NIT (Applicable to all bidders). Therefore, the respondent authority upon coming to know that the petitioner has failed to comply with criteria at Point Nos.4 and 5, was well within its right to disqualify the petitioner while concluding that the petitioner stood debarred/blacklisted as on the date of publication of NIT i.e., 25.09.2024. 43.1. Further, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. No.369/2025 (Item no.3 of the NIT) finds that the prayer made therein has become otiose as petitioner has failed to challenge the order dated 05.12.2024 (Annex.A/15).

43.2. Further, this court with respect to S.B.C.W.P. Nos.341/2025 and 370/2025 (Item nos.4 and 11 of the NIT respectively) finds that the same have become infructuous as the NIT in respect to Item Nos.4 and 11 itself have been cancelled.

44. Therefore, in view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the instant writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

45. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J Reserve-DJ/-

(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:32:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur