M/S Choudhary Construction And Ors vs. State Rural Develp And Panchayati Ors

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for interference. The primary reasoning was that mere participation in an earlier tender and recommendations in their favor did not create any vested right for the petitioners to be awarded the work. The Court noted that the e-tender dated September 14, 2017, had already been kept in abeyance by a press release dated September 27, 2017. Furthermore, the Court observed that the re-tendering for all Gram Panchayats was with the condition of registration of firms under GST, and the cancellation of tenders for seven Gram Panchayats was for various stated reasons. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.

Facts

The petitioners, various construction companies, challenged an e-tender dated September 14, 2017, issued by the respondents (State of Rajasthan and its authorities). They had previously submitted tenders for different Gram Panchayats based on an e-tender issued on May 9, 2017. Their earlier tenders were considered and recommended for further processing. However, a new tender was issued on September 14, 2017, without proper cancellation of the earlier tender in some cases. The petitioners argued that since their earlier tenders were processed and recommended, they should have been awarded the work orders. They also pointed out that a press release dated September 27, 2017, kept the new tender in abeyance. The new tender included a condition for bidder registration under Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of a new e-tender dated September 14, 2017, was arbitrary and illegal, given that the petitioners' earlier tenders submitted pursuant to an e-tender dated May 9, 2017, had been processed and recommended for further action, and in some cases, the earlier tender was not properly cancelled. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that once their tenders were processed and recommended by the Gram Panchayat, the respondents could not issue a new tender. They argued that the cancellation of the earlier tender was only for seven Gram Panchayats, implying that for others, the earlier tender should have proceeded. They sought a direction to award the work to them based on the earlier tender. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments in the judgment. However, the court noted that the tender dated September 14, 2017, was floated with a condition of GST registration for all Gram Panchayats. The court also noted that the tender dated September 14, 2017, had been kept in abeyance.