High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 RAJ CK 0027

M.M. Travels Agency vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 13 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sangeet Lodha
CASE NUMBER
7849 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

49 paragraphs · 481 words
1.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking

directions to the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Udaipur, not to

reject the e-bid submitted by it pursuant to e-bid notice No.2016-

17/E-03 dated 6.5.16, if the petitioner is found eligible for award

of the work.

2.

The relevant facts are that the respondent-Municipal

Corporation issued e-bid notice dated 6.5.16 inviting tenders for

award of operation of the boats in Fatehsagar Lake for

entertainment and for taking the tourists to the Mahakaleshwar

Temple for a period of two years.

3.

The petitioner submitted the tender pursuant to the

aforesaid notice, however, apprehending that the e-bid offered by

it may not be entertained by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur,

on account of the order issued by the Managing Director,

Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (''RTDC'') debarring

the petitioner from participating in the tender process initiated by

the RTDC for a period of three years, the present petition has

been filed.

4.

On 12.7.16, while issuing notice to the respondent-Municipal

Corporation, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim

order in the following terms :

"In the meanwhile, the respondent no.2 shall not refuse to accept the offer of the petitioner while invoking the condition No.37 mentioned in the Terms and Conditions supplied with the E-Bid Notification dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure-7). It is made clear that in case the bid of the petitioner is the lowest amongst all the bidders, the work order shall not be issued in its favour till further orders of this Court."

5.

Pursuant to the interim order passed as aforesaid, the bid

offered by the petitioner was considered by the respondent-

Municipal Corporation and the petitioner being highest bidder and

otherwise eligible has been found suitable for award of the

contract.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that

keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 46 of

the Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012, where

a bidder has been debarred from participating in any procurement

process undertaken by any procurement entity, the debarring

order shall operate qua the tender process initiated by that

procuring entity only and thus, on the basis of the debarring order

passed by the RTDC, the respondent-Municipal Corporation cannot

debarred the petitioner from participating in the bidding process.

7.

This legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation.

8.

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has

candidly submitted that the petitioner being highest bidder and

otherwise eligible is found suitable for award of the work and the

respondent-Municipal Corporation intends to award the work in

favour of the petitioner.

9.

In this view of the matter, no directions are required to be

issued by this in the present writ petition and the same has

rendered infructuous.

10.

Dismissed accordingly.

11.

The respondent-Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to

award the contract in favour of the petitioner.