SATYA CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 17/8/2023, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Bench.

(2.) Briefly, the facts in the case are that aggrieved against incorrect acceptance of the financial bid which was opened in favour of respondent No.4 - M/s. Sunmax Corporation, the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal before Directorate, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur which came to be dismissed on 4/5/2023. Aggrieved against the judgment dtd. 4/5/2023, the appellant-petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur, wherein notices were issued but no interim relief was granted to him. Being dissatisfied, the appellant-petitioner preferred a writ petition before this court being SB Civil Writ Petition No.7196/2023 ( M/s. Satya Construction vs. The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur and ors). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 24/5/2023 with a direction to respondent No.1- Secretary, Local Self Government to decide the second appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. Therefore second appeal preferred by the appellant - petitioner too was dismissed by the Directorate, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide its judgment dtd. 3/8/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered the matter in its true perspective and has wrongly rejected the Second Appeal of the appellant-petitioner. He submits that the order of the Second Appellate Authority is in complete violation of Rule 80(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Transparency Rules, 2012"). Learned counsel vehemently submitted that he has categorically brought on record the fact that the Rules in the present case have been blatantly violated and breached. He further submits that it could not have been a mere coincidence that out of the 139 items, rates for 133 items quoted by the appellant-petitioner were similar to those quoted by the respondent No.4. He submits that this could only happen unless the confidentiality of the documents has been breached.Learned counsel on the strength of Rule 80(1)(c)of the Transparency Rules, 2012 submits that the Second Appellate Authority should have called for the evidence from the concerned person on the subject that there was no breach of the information of the documents rendered by the respective bidders. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Bench has not appreciated the arguments in the correct perspective and has committed an error while rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner.