Rosmerta Technologies LTD. vs. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary

Held

The Court held that the petitioner-company was declared technically qualified and allowed to participate in the second stage of the tender, with its financial bid considered. It noted that the petitioner itself benefited from the clarification process by submitting a corrected GST registration certificate. The Court found that the petitioner's writ petition was frivolous and had prevented the State Government from issuing a work order to Respondent No. 3, causing a loss to the public exchequer. The Court relied on *Central Coalfields Ltd.* to emphasize that the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from NIT terms provided the deviation is applicable to all bidders. The Court also referenced *Ramana Dayaram Shetty* and *Larsen and Toubro Ltd.* regarding the standard of eligibility but distinguished the present case by noting the petitioner's own benefit from the clarification process. The Court concluded that the filing of such a frivolous writ petition needed to be deprecated. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Rosmerta Technologies Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of the technical bid of M/s M-Tech Innovations Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) by the Transport Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The contract was for the issuance of Smart Card Based Vehicle Registration Certificates and driving licenses. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3's bid had material defects and that these defects were either overlooked or permitted to be rectified. The petitioner sought to quash the appeal mechanism within the Request for Proposal (RFP) and direct a re-evaluation of technical bids based on the RFP's criteria as they existed on the submission deadline. The Court had previously deemed the internal appeal mechanism not efficacious and proceeded to examine the merits of the technical bid evaluation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan, acted arbitrarily and with malafide intentions in accepting the technical bid of Respondent No. 3 by overlooking or permitting rectification of material defects, thereby violating the terms of the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 18.10.2017? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procurement law and contractual interpretation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 3's bid suffered from several material defects, including non-submission of a board resolution, signed corrigenda, e-tendering proceeding fee, invalid experience and working certificates, invalid Appendix VII (Financial Capacity), incomplete balance sheet, invalid power of attorney, and non-submission of a self-certificate for not being blacklisted. They argued that these defects should have led to the disqualification of Respondent No. 3's bid, citing precedents like *Ramana Dayaram Shetty* and *Larsen and Toubro Ltd.* which emphasize strict adherence to tender conditions. Respondent's arguments: The respondents (State and Respondent No. 3) argued that the petitioner itself was allowed to provide clarifications and submit a corrected GST registration certificate, demonstrating that the department permitted clarifications for all bidders. They relied on *Central Coalfields Ltd.* to argue that the procuring entity has the authority to deviate from NIT terms if applied to all bidders, and that the decision-making process of the employer should be respected unless irrational or mala fide. They also argued that the petitioner's bid was technically qualified and that the writ petition was frivolous, causing loss to the public exchequer.