M/s Mangesh Kumar And Company vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the rejection of his tender vide Annex.5.

The respondent - Panchayat Samiti Raniwada, District Jalore, called for E-tender by advertisement dated 17.9.2019 (Annex.2). The advertisement started with the stipulation that the same was being issued under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 and Rules 2013 (RTPP Act).

In clause 49 of the E-tender, again it was reiterated that all the actions could be taken and would be subject to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules of RTPP.

Various submissions have been made in the petition seeking to question the validity of rejection of petitioner's E-tender on the ground, which have been indicated in the order Annex.5.

Learned counsel for the respondent - State made submissions that rejection of petitioner's tender is open to appeal under the provisions of Section 38 of the RTPP Act, 2012, and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that as the BDO was member of the Procurement Committee, which fact is reflected from Annex.5 and BDO himself is the appellate authority, the appeal in the present case would not be maintainable and/or the same would only be a farce and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintain the present petition.

Learned counsel for the State made submissions that as the Procurement Committee is headed by the BDO in the present case, the appellate authority under the Act would be headed by the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Zila Parishad and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised regarding the remedy of appeal not being available to the petitioner, has no basis.

In view of the above fact situation, whereby, the entire procurement is being made subject to the Act of 2012 and the Act of 2012 provides for remedy of appeal and further as various disputed questions of fact have been raised by the petitioner with regard to filing of the certain documents, which the committee has indicated were not filed, the present petition without availing the remedy of appeal, is not maintainable.

The petitioner would have to approach the appellate authority under the RTPP Act, 2012, which as per counsel for the respondents would be headed by the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Zila Parishad.

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law.