VEEKAY PLAST PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 24th January, 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.

(2.) ADUMBRATED in brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a registered partnership firm doing the business of manufacturing plastic pipes and other accessories as also doing the work of civil contract. He is AA class registered contractor firm with the respondent-department. It is stated that the respondent no.3 Chief Engineer. Narmada Canal Project, Government of Rajasthan, Sanchore, District Jalore issued Notice Inviting Tender No. 2/2012-12 inviting bids from intending contractors / firms for execution of earth work, single PCC block lining, pucca structure, diggies etc., as mentioned in NIT Item No. 1 under the head of 'name of work' on the basis of two envelop system and the last date for receiving the bid was 16th September, 2011. The bids were opened on 19th September, 2011. The appellant-firm was found qualified as he had given the lowest bid relating to the said works mentioned at Item No. 1 and 2 of the NIT. The appellant firm also deposited the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 23.18 lacs along-with its bid for the work of item no. 1 in the shape of Demand Draft of Rs. 10.00 lacs and bank guarantee for the rest of the amount. It is submitted by the appellant that in terms of the Rajasthan Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules (here-in-after to be referred to RPWFA Rules) more particularly clause 11 of Appendix-XI (RPWA-100), the bid was to be accepted within 70 days i.e. upto 28th November, 2011, but the respondent-Department could not issue the acceptance / tender bid submitted by the appellant firm within the said period and instead vide order dated 28th November, 2011 required the appellant firm to extend the validity period of acceptance of the tender submitted by it for item no. 1 of NIT No. 2/2011-2012.

(3.) E Converso, Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents defended the impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that Appendix-XI (RPWA-100) only provided the prescribed period for sanctioning authority and that the validity period of the proposal as made was a period of 90 days from the date of the bid within which the communication was to be made to the bidders with regard to their outcome. The impugned order is well in tune with the terms and conditions of the tender notice and the same warrants no intervention and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.