RAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been laid in this writ petition to NIT Nos.1/2012-13, 3/2012-13 and 6/2012-13 issued by the Public Works Department (PWD) Government of Rajasthan on the ground that time granted for submitting bid documents in pursuance to the aforesaid NITs was inadequate hence arbitrary and contrary to the requirement of Rule 327 (b) (iv) of the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules (hereinafter 'the FA Rules') as also Rule 33 thereof whereunder minimum 7-30 days' time period for making of bids has been provided in respect of tenders of different valuations. It has been prayed that in view of contravention of the aforesaid FA Rules and inadequacy of time for responding to various works under NIT Nos.1/2012-13, 3/2012-13 and 6/2012-13, the aforesaid NITs be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to invite bids afresh by issuing NITs anew. Alternatively it has been prayed that the petitioners be allowed to participate in the aforesaid NIT Nos.1/2012-13, 3/2012-13 and 6/2012-13 by extending the date of the submission of bids in response to the NITs in issue.

(2.) THE factual background of the case of the petitioners is that the respondent Chief Engineer, PWD invited online tenders through three different NIT Nos.1/2012-13 (20 package road works), 3/2012-13 (157 package road works) and 6/2012-13 (257 package road works). It is stated that in the aforesaid NITs it was provided that for making a bid, applications could be downloaded by prospective bidders from the department's website beginning June 18, 2012, 9.00 AM onwards to July 18 upto 9.30 AM. The last date for submission of tenders was July 18, 2012 by 10.30 AM. Opening of the bids was to take place at 1:00 PM on July, 20, 2012. It has been averred that the petitioners personally and through their Union i.e. PWD Contractors Association of Bikaner Zone represented to the respondent authorities for extension of time for submission of bids as according to them the NITs aforesaid relating to hundreds of packages of road works had been uploaded belatedly and in some cases merely 2 to 10 days time made available for downloading the bid application forms and submitting the bids. It is alleged that the short period of time allowed for downloading the bid application forms and submission of the bids was wholly arbitrary and that consequently the time for submission of the bids be extended. It has been stated that the petitioners, as AA class contractors, and other members of their union were desirous to submit bids in respect of aforesaid various works under three NITs Nos.1/2012-13, 3/2012-13 and 6/2012-13, but due to belated uploading of the tender documents they had been denied the right of submitting their bids. It has been further stated that the representation of the petitioners and their Union remained unheeded, defeating the object of an impartial, fair and transparent bidding process. Allegations of arbitrariness and malafides as also nepotism have been made against the respondents in their intent to benefit "some favourable contactors ". Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India have also been invoked against the alleged arbitrary action of respondent department in the delayed uploading of tender documents in respect of various road works resulting in the petitioners being excluded from submitting their bids prior to the last notified date of July 18, 2012. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners had no option but to approach this court on the issue now in question once earlier by filing writ petition No.11323/2012. The writ however came to be disposed of on 6-8-2012 with the following directions:-

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition. In my considered view the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of vagueness of pleadings wherefrom no contravention of any legal or fundamental rights of the petitioners is made out to the satisfaction of the court. The three NITs Nos.1/2012-13, 3/2012-13 and 6/2012-13 are in respect of over 500 works stretched across the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners have not focused on any specific work in which they were interested and in respect of which owing to delay in uploading of tender documents they failed to participate in the tender process and submit their bids. Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the purpose of challenging any perceived irregularity or even illegality without the petitioners having locus standi. There has to be material on record of the petition and averment as to how and what legal and fundamental right of the petitioners have been infringed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Escorts Ltd. [(1986) 1 SCC 264] has held that there was no doubt that every action of the State or Instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and in appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Yet proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be construed as a charter for judicial review of state action, wherein the State is to account for its actions in its manifold activities on mere askance without a specific case being set out on facts with reference to the rights of the petitioner/s and injury thereto.