VEEKAY PLAST Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

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.) The case of the appellant firm is that even though no extension on the validity period, as sought, was given by the appellant-firm and vide order dated 7th December, 2011, the refusal to the request for extension of bid was sent, yet the work order in respect of the NIT in issue was released to the appellant-firm by the respondent-Department vide order dated 13th December, 2011, and the appellant-firm was required to start the work and also required to attend the office of the Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project, Division-IV, Sanchore for executing the contract agreement with the Government of Rajasthan, within a period of 10 days from the letter dated 13th December, 2011. It is submitted that the acceptance of the bid dated 16th September, 2011, which had been opened on 19th September, 2011, vide letter dated 13th December, 2011 is contrary to the RPWFA Rules and, therefore, not binding on the firm. The prayer, as set out earlier in the petition, has been made in the aforesaid context.