Poata, District Kotputli- Behror v. State of Rajasthan, Through the Additional Chief

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan Government Secretariat, Jaipur -302005

2. Commissioner And Secretary(EGS), Department of Rural Development, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur -302005

3. District Collector And Program Coordinator (EGS), District Kotputli- Behror

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Paota, District Kotputli-Behror ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Pradeep kalwaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur-AAG with Mr. Saurabh Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/07/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “(a) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the tender Notice No. 1516/2025-26 dated 20/06/2025 issued by the respondent No. 5 may kindly be declared to be illegal and arbitrary and the [2025:RJ-JP:25507] (2 of 6) [CW-10106/2025] same may kindly be quashed and set aside and; (b) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof also quash and set aside the proceeding of the tender No. 1516/2025-26 dated 20/06/2025 and further also if during the pendency of the writ petition, if any work order is issued, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be restrained from issuing any work order pursuant to the tender notice dated 20/06/2025 issued by the Respondent No. 5 and; (c) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof also direct the Respondents to initiate the enquiry against the Respondent No 5 who has been issued by the Notice inviting Tender on 20/06/2026 in violation of the Rules after changing the terms and conditions of the tender notice, just to give undue benefits and; (d) award costs of this writ petition to the Petitioner, and (e) award such other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present so as to give full relief to the Petitioner.”

2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned tender notice dated 20.06.2025, by the petitioner, on following three counts:- (1) The respondents have changed the game Rules within seven days of the issuance of the earlier tender notice dated 13.06.2025 by the new tender notice dated 20.06.2025. (2) Without giving sufficient time i.e. 30 days in the notice inviting tender, the respondents have violated Rule 185 of the Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Rules, 1996 (for short, the Rules of 1996’). [2025:RJ-JP:25507] (3 of 6) [CW-10106/2025] (3) The tender has been issued by a person, who is not competent to do so i.e. the Block Development Officer (for short, ‘the BDO’).

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a consolidated tender was issued by the BDO on 13.06.2025 for supplying various materials to different panchayats, wherein a condition was put in i.e. condition No. 7 that the turnover of the firm should be 1.5 times to the annual amount. Counsel submits that condition No. 7 was changed in the tender in question and now a new condition has been incorporated requiring that the turn over of the firm should be 1.5 times or more of the average of last two years, as certified by the Charter Accountant. Counsel submits that Condition No. 7 has not been changed in the past seven days inasmuch as during this period nobody attempted to alter the condition No. 7. Counsel submits that as per the mandate contained under Rule 185 of the Rules of 1996, the tender advertisement shall be published in the newspaper with a minimum notice period of thirty days of the issuance of such tender but in the instant case, the period of thirty days has been reduced to eighteen days. Counsel submits that all the above exercise has been done to favour the persons of the respondents and deprive the petitioner and other affected persons, hence, interference of this Court is warranted and the tender process is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and submitted that the volume of work and estimated costs of work were increased and that is why the new E-tender was issued by the respondents on 20.06.2025 with an amended [2025:RJ-JP:25507] (4 of 6) [CW-10106/2025] condition that the participating firms must have an average turnover of two years of the tender amount i.e. above 1.5 times. Counsel submits that the aforesaid tender has been issued by the BDO of the concerned Panchayat Samiti for various works under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, ‘the MGNREGA Scheme’), a project run by the Central Government and the above tender process was issued in pursuance of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the Act of 2012) and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2013’). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the provisions contained under the Rules of 1996 are not applicable in the present matter. Counsel submits that as per the amended Rules of 2013, the period of notice inviting tender for a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs up to Rs. 1 Crore is 10 days but in the instant case, the period was prescribed as 21 days. Lastly, he argued that the BDO was competent to issue the E-tender as per the provisions of the Act of 2012 and the Rules of

2013. Hence, after following the due process of law and the relevant Rules, the E-tender process has been issued/initiated, which requires no interference of this Court and the present petition is liable to be rejected.

5. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submits that the amended Rules of 2013 cannot be applied in the instant case as the amended Rules deal with the time for submission of bids and modes of publicity for procurement of goods and service

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:25507] (5 of 6) [CW-10106/2025]

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the Block Development Officer, Jaipur issued a notice inviting tender on 13.06.2025 for consolidate works at different Gram Panchayat and in column 2 of the aforesaid tender notice, the estimated cost of the proposed work was mentioned. It appears that the estimated cost of the work, mentioned in the advertisement was increased, hence the volume of the work was also increased and that is why in order to give chance to more participants the condition No. 7 was changed and it is incorporated that the turn over of firm taking participation must have a certificate issued by the registered Charter Accountant certifying that such firm has average turnover of last two years to be 1.5 times or more than the tender amount and that is why the subsequent e-tender notice dated 20.06.2025 was issued.

8. Perusal of Clause 9 of the aforesaid notice indicates that the provisions contained under the RTPP Act, 2012 and the Rules of 2013 made thereunder are applicable in the instant process as the tender process was related to MGNREGA Scheme run by the Central Government.

9. The entire E-tender notice no where reflects that the notice has been issued under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 hence under these circumstances, the incorporated of Rules 1996 are not applicable in the present case. As per the amended Rules of 2013, the respondents were supposed to issue 10 days notice in the newspaper but in the instant case, 18 days notice was published in the newspaper hence the respondents have not caused any illegality in issuing the aforesaid tender process. [2025:RJ-JP:25507] (6 of 6) [CW-10106/2025] 10 This Court finds no illegality in the same, which warrants any interference of this Court and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Ashu/199 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J