DANIEL FURNITURE (P) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner firm M/s. Daniel Furniture (P) Limited has approached this court for assailing the orders dated 01.02.2018 (Annex.27) and 16.02.2018 (Annex.30) passed by the respondent Madarsa Board and to direct the respondents to issue the work order to the petitioner company in terms of its finalized bid.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a private limited company involved in the manufacture of steel furniture, and has been given the certificate of a Small Scale Enterprise by the District Industry Center, Jodhpur. The respondent Madarsa Board, Jaipur convened a meeting on 19.12016 and decided by resolution dated 212016 to issue a bid for procuring 34,451 Dual Desk and Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'bid items'). In this very meeting, it was decided that the bid item is a reserve item in terms of the notification dated 19.11.2015. The Board issued the e-bid notice No.1/2016-17, which was published on 27.12016. The last date for submission of bid was stipulated as 27.01.2017 in this bid document. The petitioner was the sole bidder, which submitted its bid in furtherance of the bid notification. The said bid of the petitioner, though found to be in order, was cancelled by the Board vide order dated 31.01.2017. Thereafter, another bid notice was issued on 23.02017, wherein three participants including the petitioner company applied for award of the work order. The e-bids of the two other participants were rejected, whereas the bid offered by the petitioner company was accepted. Against the rejection of their bids, the remaining unsuccessful bidders filed appeals, which were allowed by order dated 17.04.2017 by the second appellate authority in the following terms:-

(3.) In furtherance of the said order of the second appellate authority, a fresh e-bid was uploaded by the respondent Board, in which the number of bid items was increased to 50,041. One Mr. P.R. Sharma participated in this process as representative of the Industries Department. The representation of the Industries Department was meant for safeguarding the interests of the local entrepreneurs. The petitioner again participated in this e-bid process and was the sole bidder. However, it is alleged that Mr. P.R. Sharma, who participated in the pre-bid meeting committee, was acting in a malafide manner and deliberately did not sign the minutes of the meeting, with an intention to subterfuge the bid process. He clandestinely sought opinion of the Central Institute of Plastics EngineeringTechnology (CIPET). The petitioner has alleged that Mr. Sharma was interested in awarding the tender to an out of State company, namely, Royal Sales Corporation, for securing undue gain and for satisfying his vested interests. Thus, motivated with this malafide objective, Mr. Sharma, without any direction or opinion in this regard, sought opinion of the CIPET on 31.10.2017 about the nature of the bid items. The petitioner claims that CIPET has no role to play in the instant tender process and its opinion is neither relevant nor binding on the Board. Despite that, Mr. Sharma procured the opinion of CIPET and pressurized the respondent Board so as to award the tender in favour of Royal Sales Corporation. Thereafter, the Corporation appears to have filed a complaint regarding the bid process and acting thereupon, the Joint Secretary of the Minorities Department sought a report of alleged anomalies in the tender process. The petitioner further claims that its technical bid was found responsive and thus, a meeting for finalizing the bid process was convened by the purchase committee on 21.11.2017. The purchase committee held that the rates quoted by the petitioner company were justified. However, it is alleged that acting at the behest of the aforesaid Mr. P.R. Sharma, who was dancing to the tunes of the private corporation of Mumbai, the bid process in question was arbitrarily cancelled by order dated 16.02.2018 causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that this entire action is malafide, arbitrary and was perpetrated by the corrupt and malafide actions of Mr. P.R. Sharma. On these grounds, the petitioner has approached this court for assailing the impugned order and seeking a direction for finalization of the bid process in question.