Khichar Hospital, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar (Rajasthan) v. Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction

Judgment

6. Versus ----Appellant Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd, . Through Managing Director, Having Its Regd. Office Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur-302004. Deputy General Manager-Ii, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., Having Its Regd. Office Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur- 302004. Project Director-Unit Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan State Road Developmentand Construction Corporation Ltd, . Unit- Jhunjhunu, Having Its Registered Office At 2/55, Housing Board, Near Central School, Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan). M/s Galaxy Mining And Royalties Pvt. Ltd, Through The Director, Having Its Registered Office At 701, Ganga Heights, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). M/s Mandeepa Enterprises (A Proprietorship Firm), Through General Manager, Bhairav Patel, G-1, Tulip Garden, Dashadrone, Rajarhat Main Road Opposite Sbi Bank, Kolkatta-700136 M/s Green Star Minerals, Through Its Authorized Signatory, Situated At Plot No.-4, 1St Floor, Opp. Nidhi Kamal Bajaj Showroom Near Pink Sq Mall, Govind Marg, Janta Colony, Raja Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004. ----Respondents Connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1043/2025 Galaxy Prime Private Limited, Trhough Its Authorised Signatory Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh. Ramavtar, Having Its Registered Office At P. No. 8, Vaishali Nagar Enclave Yojna, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Versus ----Appellant

2. Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., Through Managing Director, Having Its Regd. Office- Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur-302004. Deputy General Manager-Ii, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd. Having Its Regd. Office- Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (2 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025]

4. Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur-302004. Project Director-Unit Iv Jaipur, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd. Unit- Iv Jaipur, Having Its Registered Office At Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass, Jaipur- 302004 (Rajasthan). Ridhi Sidhi Housing Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Haing Its Registered Office At 312, Ganpati Plaza, M. I. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Mr. David Mehla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubhang Sharma for RSRDC Mr. Jatin Harjai, with Mr. Mohit Kumar Soni Mr. Rohan Aggarwal Ms. Nikshubha Sharma Mr. Tushar Sharma for Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj with Mr. Laxmi Nivas Koli & Mr. Tanmay Sharma Mr. Lakshay Pareek with Mr. Shreyansh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 15/09/2025

1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals have been heard together and decided by a common order.

2. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants against the judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter to [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (3 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] be referred as “RSRDC”) issued E-NIT dated 24.03.2025 bearing No. 536/2024-25 for selection of a bidder for collection of user fee through competitive bidding via e-procurement on the Sikar– Jhunjhunu–Loharu and Jaipur–Kuchaman–Nagpur BOT roads for a period of one year. The grievance of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the RSRDC had not adhered to the mandatory conditions stipulated in Clause 2.8 of the Request for Qualification (hereinafter to be referred as “RFQ”)-cum-Request for Proposal (hereinafter to be referred as “RFP”). As per Clause

2.8, certain documents were required to be submitted in original hard copy in addition to the electronic submission. The technical bids were opened on 21.04.2025, and the financial bids on

22.04.2025. Four bidders were found technically qualified. Subsequently, being the highest bidder, letter of acceptance was issued on 13.05.2025 in favour of respondent No.4 – M/s Galaxy Mining and Royalties Private Limited.

4. RSRDC filed a detailed reply to the writ petitions explaining the basis for awarding the tender in favour of respondent No.4. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, vide its judgment dated

26.08.2025, dismissed the writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, particularly with respect to the mandatory conditions of the RFQ-cum-RFP. It was contended that the writ petitions ought to have been allowed on the ground of non-submission of hard copies of certain documents as mandated [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (4 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] under Clause 2.8 of the RFQ-cum-RFP. He also relied on Rule 59(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter “RTPP Act”), and argued that the RSRDC had violated this provision. He further submitted that in view of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such tender conditions are to be treated as mandatory, and any non- compliance thereof renders the award of tender invalid.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors reported in (2024) 10 SCC 273, wherein, it was held as under:-

28. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public 29. authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality Under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (5 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025]

37. The submissions made by the learned Counsels for the Respondents that the project in question being Infrastructure project and also one of the Mega projects, this Court may not interfere more particularly in view of the fact that agreement has already been entered into between the Respondent BCCL and the Special Purpose Vehicle of the Respondent no.8, cannot be accepted, when we have found that the impugned decision of the Respondent BCCL was grossly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As held earlier, bodies/ the Government instrumentalities are expected to act in absolutely fair, reasonable and transparent manner, particularly in the award of contracts for Mega projects. Any element of arbitrariness or discrimination may lead to hampering of the entire project which would not be in the public interest.

7. He further relied another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and Ors reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703, wherein, it was held as under:-

82. We may cull out our conclusions in regard to the points, which we have framed: i. It is, undoubtedly, true that the writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy. A matter, which lies entirely within a private realm of affairs of public body, may not lend itself for being dealt with under the writ jurisdiction of the Court. ii. The principle laid down in Bareilly Development Authority (supra) that in the case of a non-statutory contract the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract and the decisions, which are purported to be followed, including Radhakrishna Agarwal (supra), may not continue to hold good, in the light of what has been laid down in ABL (supra) and as followed in the recent judgment in Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (6 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] iii. The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the Respondent-State in a case by itself to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/inaction is, per se, arbitrary. iv. An action will lie, undoubtedly, when the State purports to award any largesse and, undoubtedly, this relates to the stage prior to the contract being entered into [See R.D. Shetty (supra)]. This scrutiny, no doubt, would be undertaken within the nature of the judicial review, which has been declared in the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651.

8. He further relied upon another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Anoj Kumar Agarwala reported (2020) 17 SCC 577, wherein, it was held as under:-

13. The fact that a superseded Government Resolution continues to be utilised for the purpose of performance security may raise eyebrows. However, insofar as the tendering public is concerned, they have been put on notice that the performance security that is to be furnished, will only be as per the GR dated 12.2.2016 and corrigenda and not as per the GR dated 12.04.2017.

14. The law on the subject is well settled. In Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., this Court held: “14. The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engg. Works : (1991) 3 SCC 273] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para 6) [MANU/SC/0363/1991

6......... The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories--those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (7 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases.”

9. He further relied upon another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matte of Glodyne Technoserve Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors reported in (2011) 5 SCC 103, wherein, it was held as under:-

46. The above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the Quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such Quality Certificate. Where the Quality certificate will be expiring shortly and is due for renewal, the bidder is also obliged to produce the renewed certificate at the time of signing of the contract. The Appellant claimed to have a valid and active ISO 9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document. Understanding.

47. The submissions made on behalf of the Appellant proceeds on the basis that it was entitled, almost as a matter of right, not to submit the documents required to be submitted along with the bid documents on the supposition that, even if such documents were valid and active, they could be submitted at the time of signing of the Memorandum of The Appellant had a valid and active ISO 9001:2000 certification which it did not submit along with the Bid documents, may be due to inadvertence, but whether such explanation was to be accepted or not lay within the discretionary powers of the authority inviting the bids. The decision taken to reject the Technical Bid of the Appellant cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. We need not refer to the decisions cited by the learned Attorney General or the [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (8 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] Appellant in this regard, as the principles enunciated therein are well-established.

48. Even the question as to whether Shri Naveen Prakash of the consultant agency had obtained information that the Appellant had a valid and active ISO 9001:2000 certification and had passed on such information to Shri Kesari, does not make any difference, since the same was never asked for or placed before the Tender Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the Bids despite the presence of Shri Naveen Prakash at the meeting of the Advisory Committee at 2.15 p.m. on the same day.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and contended that the learned Single Judge committed no error in dismissing the writ petitions. It was submitted that Clause 7(b) of the E-NIT clearly provides that the entire process of tender submission is to be conducted online. As per Clauses 2.6 and 2.7 of the RFQ-cum-RFP, the required documents were to be submitted online along with the technical and financial bids. Furthermore, Clause 3.2.1(d) of the RFQ-cum-RFP specifically provides that in case of any discrepancy between the online submissions and physical documents, the documents submitted online shall prevail. It was argued that the requirement under Clause 2.8 to submit hard copies is not mandatory, especially in view of Clause 7(b) of the E-NIT. The respondents further submitted that there was no significant deviation from the tender conditions and that Rule 59(5) of the RTPP Act allows for minor deviations. Since, all necessary documents were submitted online by the successful bidder, non-submission of hard copies did not affect the merits of the bid. It was also contended that public [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (9 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] interest has not been compromised, as the contract was awarded to the highest bidder, and no mala fide can be attributed to RSRDC.

11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, wherein, it has been provided as under:- Section-4. Legal recognition of electronic records.—Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is– (a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and (b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.

12. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Ors. Vs. Suresh Mathew reported in AIR 2025 SC 2118, wherein, it was held as under:-

16. The question of scope of judicial review in the cases of award of contracts has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others2 wherein the Court observed as under: “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are functions. essentially commercial [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (10 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains molehills of technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; Or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. (ii) Weather public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences a tenderer/contractor or distribution of Cases [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (11 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] (allotment largesse State sites/shops, licenses, grant of dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”

13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.

14. The learned Single Judge while considering the arguments observed as under:- “16.5.The issue raised by the petitioner hinges upon whether non- submission of hard copies of the requisite documents, in addition to online submission, was a mandatory requirement under the terms of the impugned E-NIT so as to render the declaration of another bidder as responsive illegal and arbitrary.

17. A bare perusal of Clause 7 of the E-NIT dated 24.03.2025 leaves no manner of doubt that the tender forms were required to be submitted online only and that the process of evaluation was also to be carried out through the online portal Corrigendum No. 2 dated 04.04.2025 extended the timeline for submission of hard copies “if applicable”, but the expression “if applicable” itself indicates that the submission of hard copies was not a sine qua non for responsiveness. The was online submission, bidders, which all including the petitioner and the private respondent, duly complied with. requirement

18. The reliance placed by the petitioners on Clause 2.8 and Clause 3.2.1(d) of the bid document is misconceived. Clause 2.8 merely outlines the test of responsiveness, but does not stipulate hard copy submission as a mandatory condition. Likewise, Clause 3.2.1(d), read harmoniously with Clause 7, [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (12 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] demonstrates that online submission was the substantive requirement, while hard copy submission, if undertaken, was ancillary in nature. Moreso, in case of any discrepancies between the documents submitted online and documents submitted offline, the documents submitted shall prevail, thus the submission of documents in physical form is merely a formality and not a binding requirement and non-submission of physical documents cannot be termed as a material deviation. The interpretation suggested by the petitioners would amount to rewriting impermissible in judicial review. tender terms,

19. As per the clause 30 of the RFQ cum RFP, the present E-NIT and bidding process are governed by the RTPP Act and Rules. The disclaimer clause therein, makes it undisputed that the clause 3.2.1 regarding the bid responsiveness is squarely covered by Rules 59(5) and 61 of the RTPP Rules, which allows minor deviations that do not materially alter the bid. The provisions of the RTPP Act, 2012 also support the respondents’ stand as, Section 6 recognizes the right of the procuring entity to determine the eligibility of bidders in accordance with the terms of the bid document, Section 7 confers discretion on the procuring entity to reject any bid for reasons to be recorded and Section 4 fairness, mandates transparency, competition, and non-discrimination, all of which appear to be observed in the present case. In summation of 26. and upon a aforementioned, comprehensive appraisal of the tender conditions, the RTPP Act and Rules, as well as the rival submissions, this Court finds no infirmity in the process adopted by the respondents. The submission of hard copies was not a sine qua non for bid responsiveness, the core requirement being online [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (13 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] terms, tender submission, which stood duly complied with by all bidders; the interpretation canvassed by the petitioners, if accepted, would amount to rewriting impermissible; that as the work orders vis-a-vis the appropriate eligible bidder is already issued and the successful bidders financial bid generates significantly higher revenue than the petitioners', there is no onus upon the respondents to elucidate their bonafides and modus to the petitioners, as the same is already substantiated by the material evidence. Moreover, the process of evaluation was carried out in a transparent and competitive manner, duly scrutinized by the technical committee, moreover, no element of malafides or established and the provisions of Clause nos. 2.7, 2.8, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 6.2 and 7 of the sacrosanct document for the instant bid substantiates the respondents. stance of Nonetheless, having voluntarily participated in the process, the petitioners are estopped assailing the tender conditions after being declared unsuccessful, in view of the principles laid down in Meerut Development (Supra) and Jagadish Mandal (Supra) and taking cautious note of the ratio encapsulated in Tata Cellular (Supra), withal noting that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable from the present matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter.” arbitrariness

15. In our considered view, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellants deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the main document in the present matter is the E-NIT and RFQ-cum- RFP which is only an information given to the participants with regard to procedure for their convenience, secondly, in clause 7 (b) of E-NIT itself, it has been specifically provided that the [2025:RJ-JP:37462-DB] (14 of 14) [SAW-1042/2025] deposition of the NIT and thereafter all the procedure would be online, thirdly, there is no mala fide intention on the part of the RSRDC in awarding the contract to the respondent No.4, as the respondent No.4 was the highest bidder for toll collection on the proposed route, fourthly, it is an admitted fact that all the documents were submitted online by the contesting parties including respondent No.4, therefore, no procedural irregularity has been committed by the RSRDC, fifthly, awarding of contract in favour of the respondent No.4 was in the public interest as he was highest bidder, lastly, under the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference by this Court.

16. In that view of the matter, these appeals stand dismissed.

17. Copy of this order be separately placed in the connected file. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /307 & 308