1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1887/2009. (M/s Ram Swaroop Chotia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : April 02, 2009 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________ Mr. Vineet Kumar Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. N.M. Lodha for the respondent(s). BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to set aside the entire proceedings relating to tender notification dated 12.01.2009 and all actions taken subsequent thereto, while calling the entire record of the tender process initiated vide notification dated 12.01.2009. Further, it is prayed that a writ may be issued to the respondents restraining them from finalization of the contract awarded in favour of respondent No.4. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is engaged in the business in the area of collection of royalty and the allied works; and, for the said purpose, the petitioner firm is registered with the respondent department and as per terms and conditions it was entitled for seeking grant of contract relating to collection of excess royalty in Rajsamand district for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011. The respondent department, for the purpose of granting the said contract, issued notification on 12.01.2009 and, for the said purpose, the petitioner purchased the tender form and got all the necessary formalities done and arranged the earnest money for the grant of contract in pursuance of notification on 04.02.2009. As per the petitioner, it was offered resistance and objection from respondent No.4 and allied groups while submitting the tender form and while forming a cartel they are illegally trying to obtain the contract. However, as per the petitioner, with God’s grace, the petitioner firm successfully submitted the tender form. Allegation of the petitioner is that due to illegal action and planning of respondent No.4 along with cartel members the bid submitted by respondent No.4 for the amount of 81.77 crore rupees was accepted and the petitioner firm vide Annex.-6 dated 3 03.03.2009 sent a telegraphic message to the respondents that even though objection and opposition made by other contractors, it submitted the tender on 04.02.2009 but it has come to the its knowledge that with mala fide intention respondent No.4 and other cartel members got the petitioner ousted from getting the contract and inspite of the fact that he is ready and willing to offer 84.50 crore rupees for granting it the contract of mining in the revenue boundaries of Rajsamand, Kumbhalgarh, Amet of Rajsamand district for the period commencing from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2011. Further, a prayer was made that the petitioner firm may be awarded the contract as there will be almost rupees five crore addition to the revenue of the State. Inspite of the above offer, the bid of respondent No.4 in the sum of Rs.81.77 crore was accepted which is total loss to the State, therefore, against the illegal action of the respondent department, the Government is going to suffer loss of revenue and this fact was brought to the notice of the respondent department while sending Annex.-6; but, the prayer of the petitioner is not accepted and contract has been granted to the firm upon much less than the amount offered by the petitioner firm, therefore, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents that they should 4 accept the bid offered by him which is Rs.84.50 crore. Per contra, by way of filing reply, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that admittedly the petitioner’s bid was less than the bid offered by respondent No.4 and the bid offered by the petitioner was considered in accordance with rules and after accepting the bid of respondent No.4, earnest money deposited by the petitioner was returned vide Annex.-5 dated 10.02.2009 and, till then, there was no offer by the petitioner; but, admittedly the petitioner, for the first time, on 03.03.2009, after final approval by the State Government on 16.02.2009, sent Annex.-6 and offered the bid of Rs.84.50 crore. However, before that, the contract in favour of respondent No.4 was already accepted and, now, only to create hurdle this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner while leveling certain allegations against the department and, so also, against respondent No.4. Further, it is submitted that the earnest money returned to the petitioner was also accepted by it, therefore, now there is no question of interference in this writ petition and the matter has already been finalized. Learned counsel for the respondents invited attention of this Court to the fact that bid/tender for the excess royalty collection contract was already accepted 5 by the competent authority, therefore, now the bidder/tenderer has also executed the agreement in form No.10, which is placed on record as Annex.-R/1. It is submitted by the respondents that the allegation of the petitioner with regard to formation of cartel is baseless because even if any cartel was formed, then too, the tenderers were not prevented from offering bids; but, in the present case, the bids offered by four different firms were very much higher than the reserve price and there was great difference between their bids. In this view of the matter, the decision taken by the respondent department is based upon the bids offered by the tenderers at the time of final consideration. If any subsequent offer has been made by the petitioner even after accepting the refunded earnest money, then, there is no occasion for interference, therefore, all the allegations leveled by the petitioner firm against the department as well as respondent No.4 have no foundation to stand. Somehow, the petitioner firm is trying to create hurdle in the way of finalizing the contract which is not permissible in law. For the other grounds also raised by the petitioner, it is submitted by the respondents that all the allegations are false and contentions of the petitioner have no foundation to stand in the eye of law. 6 Having carefully gone through the material on record and considered the rival submissions, it is obvious that the petitioner’s bid was less than the bid accepted by the department. However, on 03.03.2009, the petitioner made request for enhancing its bid. In my opinion, when admittedly, the bid offered by the petitioner was less than the bid accepted by the respondent department, then, no interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be made. But, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of H.U. Construction Company & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, reported in 1993 (1) WLC 280, I am of the opinion that the State authorities are required to watch the interest of the State for the purpose of collection of revenue. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment rendered in H.U. Construction Company’s case, the petitioner firm may appear before the Secretary, Revenue for the purpose of representing its case for enhancement of bid. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the observation/direction that the petitioner may appear before the Secretary to the Government, Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 13.04.2009 and file representation for enhancement 7 of its bid. Upon filing the said representation, after providing opportunity of hearing, final decision may be taken by the Secretary concerned after considering the judgment of this Court in H.U. Construction Company’s case (supra). It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the order passed upon its representation, if any, if it is so aggrieved by the order. There shall however be no order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.