Tendering usually refers to the process whereby government and financial institutions invite bids for large projects that must be submitted within a finite deadline or it is an invitation to bid for a project or accept a formal offer such as a takeover bid. Here The appeal made by the appellants were dismissed by the courts even after scrutiny of the matter as the tenders was not in consonance with the prescribed conditions made by the respondents. A single bench comprising of the Honorable chief justice Indrajit Mahanty in Rice water solutions private Ltd vs. state of Rajasthan (special appeal writ no. 714/2020 ) in connected with M/s watermate technologies private limited vs. G.A. infra private Ltd. D.B. special appeal writ no. 716/2020 dealt with the issue whether to set aside the present appeal or not .
The case given on 27th January 2021; the respondents invited tenders with the objective of providing pure drinking water for different locations in Rajasthan. However, the respondents rejected the tenders submitted by the appellants on the grounds of not qualifying certain required conditions and also it was against natural justice. The appeal from the appellants was dismissed several times, first on the provisions of Rajasthan transparency in public procurement act 2012 was dismissed and the tenders were rejected as it was against natural justice, even after the higher authority meticulously examined the issues raised and dismissed the same with a well-reasoned order. Further the appellants challenged the order of the second appeal by way of SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7935/2019 AND 8097/202O which was also dismissed. Based on the material made available on record. It was dismissed without any scrutiny of the matter. The judge based on the material provided by the council refrained from analyzing the issues raised in the petitions. According to the council of the respondents who have supported the impugned order that the scrutiny of the issues has been made by three forums and the request and claim of the appellants was held to be untenable. According to the record the tenders submitted by the appellants were rejected as they did strictly satisfy the conditions.
The court decided that the order of the first appeal is not arbitrary, biased or unjustified and even after the careful examination and inspection the appeal was dismissed. The drawback was that the appellants submitted two certificates from different medias which were not in consonance with the conditions prescribed by the respondents. However, the substantial work about 60-70% of the contract has already been carried out which would render the appeal infructuous.
This court held that, “it is apparent that the tenders submitted by the present appellants were rejected as they did not strictly satisfy the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondents.” Further The court stated that, “The issues raised by the appellants in first appeal were meticulously examined and the same were dismissed with a well-reasoned order. Hence, it cannot be said that the order of first appeal is arbitrary, biased or unjustified in any manner.”
