M/S K.S. Bhati, Contractor Firm vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

M/s K.s. Bhati, Contractor Firm (Petitioner), a GST-registered entity, had an existing contract for bagging, loading, and stacking work from October 16, 2021, to April 20, 2023. The Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited (RCDF) issued a new e-bid for the same work on April 1, 2023. Seven bidders submitted technical bids, and a shortfall notice was issued to all except the petitioner. The petitioner made representations on April 15 and 17, 2023, seeking the work. Without responding to these, the financial bids were opened on April 20, 2023, showing respondent no. 5 as the lowest bidder (L-1) and the petitioner as the second lowest (L-2). The petitioner was informed that respondent no. 5 was awarded the work order and directed to commence from April 21, 2023, concluding the petitioner's existing contract. The petitioner challenged the tender summary report, the award of the work order to respondent no. 5, and the procedure adopted by respondent no. 4.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. It observed that the petitioner's earlier contract concluded on April 20, 2023, and a new tender was issued on April 1, 2023, with respondent no. 5 being awarded the work order as the lowest bidder based on the tender summary report dated April 20, 2023. The Court found that the work order was awarded to respondent no. 5 in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, and that respondent no. 5 had already commenced the work. The Court held that any interference at this stage would amount to unsettling an already settled position. Crucially, the Court found no legal infirmity, illegality, or irregularity in the process conducted by the official respondents. The judgments cited by the petitioner were found not to assist their case. The Court did not find it a fit case to grant any relief to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the procedure adopted by respondent no. 4 in issuing a shortfall notice and allowing supplementation of documents after the technical bid opening, contrary to Clause 7 & 8 of the bidding document and Section 14(6) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, was illegal and intended to favour respondent no. 5? 2. Whether the acceptance of the PF inspection report of respondent no. 5, which was only up to 2015-2016, was contrary to the principles of transparency in government contracts? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents violated Section 14(6) of the Act of 2012 and Clauses 7 & 8 of the bid terms by calling for supplementary documents after the technical bid opening. They contended that the entire process was designed to unfairly favour respondent no. 5, citing the acceptance of an outdated PF inspection report for respondent no. 5 as evidence. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in PSEB & Ors. Vs. Bhatia International Ltd. and Goldyan Technoserve Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 38 of the Act of 2012. They submitted that the bidding process was conducted lawfully, the petitioner's contract ended on April 20, 2023, and respondent no. 5 was awarded the new work order as the lowest bidder. They also argued that the petitioner misinterpreted Clause 8 of the bid terms.