M/S. Kunal Infrastructure Company vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 13.12.2021, whereby the respondents have asked the

petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,18,93,454/- as additional performance security because petitioner’s bid was unbalanced.

Mr. Pankaj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issued involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered, in

petitioner’s favour, by the judgment dated 28.01.2022, passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.9620/2021

: M/s. Shera Ram Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Mr. Piyush Bhandari associate to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. He, however,

submits that the petitioner had furnished an undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of NIT.

In the opinion of this Court, the fact that the petitioner has furnished undertaking, hardly makes any difference on petitioner’s rights, particularly

when condition of depositing additional performance security itself has been declared to be illegal and contrary to Rule 75 of the Rajasthan

Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013.

The writ petition is allowed.

The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to perform the contract in accordance with law, without insisting upon additional performance

security.

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.