The Tenders were rejected as they did not strictly satisfy the terms and conditions prescribed: High court of Rajasthan.

 on 01 07 2021 at 02:36:14 PM ) Pvt. Ltd. Having Its RegisteredOffice At K 60 M.I.D.C. Industrial Area Hingna Road Nagpur Maharashtra 440016 Through Its AuthorizedRepresentative Ashok Kumar Sharma S o Shri Tulsi RamSharma Aged About 30 Years2.Abhijeet Gan S o Vinayak Gan Aged About 37 Years Resident Of 19 Friends Colony Pratap Nagar Nagpur 440022 Maharashtra Shareholder Of Appellant No 1Company AppellantsVersus1.State Of Rajasthan Public Health EngineeringDepartment Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur through Its Principal Secretary2.Principal Secretary PHED And GWD Secretariat Jaipur3.R.K. Meena Fathers Name Not Known Chief Engineer(Rural) PHED 2 Civil Lines Jal Bhawan Rajasthan Jaipur4.Additional Chief Engineer PHED Bharatpur5.M s G A Infra Pvt Ltd 402 Manupasana Sardar PatelMarg C Scheme Jaipur6.M s P C Snehal Construction Pvt Ltd And Desire EnergySolutions Pvt Ltd Consortium 401 Manupasana SardarPatel Marg C Scheme Jaipur RespondentsConnected WithD.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 716 2020M s Watermate Technologies Private Limited Regd. Off. 53 Adinath Nagar Fatehpura Udaipur Through Its Director MohitMehta S o. Narendra Kumar Mehta Age 32 Yrs313001 AppellantVersus1.Additional Chief Engineer PHED Region Udaipur JalBhawan Machchla Magra Udaipur.2.Chief EngineerPHED 2 Civil Lines Jal Bhawan Jaipur 302006[SAW 714 20203.Principal Secretary PHED Secretariat Jaipur 302005.4.G.A. Infra Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director 402 ManUpasna Sardar Patel Marg C Scheme Jaipur RespondentsFor Appellant(s):Mr. Salim InamdarMr. Raunak SinghviMr. Ribhu Dutt through VCFor Respondent(s):Mr. Anil Mehta AAGMr. Punit SinghviHON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMAJudgment27 01 2021Brief facts of the matter are that the respondents invitedtenders for the purpose to provide pure drinking water at variousplaces in Rajasthan. The tenders submitted by the presentappellants could not technically qualify the conditions therefore their tenders were rejected. They preferred first departmentalappeal under the provisions of Rajasthan Transparency in PublicProcurement Act 2012 which was dismissed. Thereafter theypreferred second appeal which also came to be dismissed. Boththe appellants challenged the order of second appeal by way of SBCivil Writ petitions No. 7935 2019 and 8097 2020 which alsocame to be dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2020 and30.09.2020. Hence being aggrieved of the order of Single Benchdated 07.09.2020 and 30.09.2020 this appeal has beenpresented.We have heard learned counsel for both the sides andperused the material made available on record.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that thefirst appeal was dismissed by the authority who himself rejected[SAW 714 2020the tender of the appellants which was against the principles ofnatural justice. The second appeal was dismissed without anyscrutiny of the matter. Learned Single Judge has also refrainedfrom analyzing the issues raised in the petitions. The presentappeals deserve to be allowed.Learned counsel for the respondents have supported theimpugned order with the submissions that scrutiny of the issueshas been made consecutively by 3 forums and the claim of theappellants was held to be untenable. 60 70% of work undercontract has already been carried out hence the appeals havebecome infructuous which deserve to be dismissed.Heard. Considered.On perusal of the record it is apparent that the tenderssubmitted by the present appellants were rejected as they did notstrictly satisfy the terms and conditions prescribed by therespondents. The issues raised by the appellants in first appealwere meticulously examined and the same were dismissed with awell reasoned order. Hence it cannot be said that the order offirst appeal is arbitrary biased or unjustified in any manner. Theorder of first appeal was upheld in second appeal and thereafter the issues raised by the present appellants in SB Civil WritPetitions No. 7935 2020 and 8097 2020 were considered in detailby the Hon’ble Single Judge and it has been rightly held that theappellants submitted two certificates from different medias whichwere not in consonance with the terms prescribed by therespondents. Besides this substantial work has already beencarried out under the contract which also renders the appealsinfructuous.[SAW 714 2020Thus in view of the above no case is made out to interferein the impugned judgment accordingly the present appeals arehereby dismissed.(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA) J(INDRAJIT MAHANTY) CJSAHIL SONI 2 3 

Summary: Tendering usually refers to the process whereby government and financial institutions invite bids for large projects that must be submitted within a finite deadline or it is an invitation to bid for a project or accept a formal offer such as a takeover bid. Here The appeal made by the appellants were dismissed by the courts even after scrutiny of the matter as the tenders  was not in consonance with the prescribed conditions made by the respondents. A single bench comprising of  the Honorable chief justice Indrajit Mahanty in  Rice water solutions private Ltd vs. state of Rajasthan (special appeal writ no. 714/2020 ) in connected with M/s watermate technologies private limited vs. G.A. infra private Ltd. D.B. special appeal writ no. 716/2020 dealt with the issue whether to set aside the present appeal or not . The case given on 27th January 2021; the respondents invited tenders with the objective of providing pure drinking water for different locations in Rajasthan. However, the respondents rejected the tenders submitted by the appellants on the grounds of not qualifying certain required conditions and also it was against natural justice.  The appeal from the appellants was dismissed several times, first on the provisions of Rajasthan transparency in public procurement act 2012 was dismissed and the tenders were rejected as it was against natural justice, even after the higher authority meticulously examined the issues raised and dismissed the same with a well-reasoned order. Further the appellants challenged the order of the second appeal by way of SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7935/2019 AND 8097/202O which was also dismissed. Based on the material made available on record. It was dismissed without any scrutiny of the matter. The judge based on the material provided by the council refrained from analyzing the issues raised in the petitions. According to the council of the respondents who have supported the impugned order that the scrutiny of the issues has been made by three forums and the request and claim of the appellants was held to be untenable.  According to the record the tenders submitted by the appellants were rejected as they did strictly satisfy the conditions.  The court decided that the order of the first appeal is not arbitrary, biased or unjustified and even after the careful examination and inspection the appeal was dismissed. The drawback was that the appellants submitted two certificates from different medias which were not in consonance with the conditions prescribed by the respondents. However, the substantial work about 60-70% of the contract has already been carried out which would render the appeal infructuous.