- (1.) All these four writ petitions seek to assail empanelment of respondent No.4 as Shopping Emporia for Carpets in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13743/2013 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13743/2013 and for Jewellery items in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13745/2013 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13746/2013 for luxury trains namely Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels for the season 2013-14.
(2.) Facts of the case are that Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Jaipur (shall hereinafter be referred as the RTDC . on 10/6/2013 floated a tender for empanelment of Shopping Emporia for luxury trains namely Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels for the season 2013-14. It was notified that tender form can be purchased from the office of Executive Director RTDC on 14/6/2013 during office hours and shall be submitted in the office upto 3.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013 and technical bids shall be opened on the same day on 4.00 p.m. The respondents supplied detailed instructions with the tender form under the caption submission of bid documents . Clause 3 of the submission of bid documents stipulates the last date and time for submission of tender upto 3.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013. Clause 4 thereof provides that technical bids shall be opened at 4.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013 itself. Clause 6 thereof provides that sealed bids in two separate envelopes placed in common cover would be received in the office of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Jaipur located at Hotel Swagatam Campus, Near Railway Station, Jaipur up to 3.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013. If the same day happens to be a holiday bids would be received and opened on the next working day. Clause 8 thereof provided that bids received after expiry of schedule time shall not be accepted. Clause 6(e. of conditions of bid documents provides that the location of the showroom of bidder-firm should be prominent on the regular prescribed route of the city sight seeing tour of the Palace on Wheels for tourists. According to the averments made in the petitions, petitioners and other two bidders submitted their bids within scheduled time upto 3.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013. Technical bids were scheduled to be opened at 4.00 p.m. on 15/7/2013 itself in the presence of bidders. Technical bids of petitioners and other two bidders were opened. All the three bidders were called for opening of the financial bids on 15/7/2013. But to their utter shock and surprise, when financial bids were opened on 25/7/2013, financial bid of respondent No.4 was also opened though its technical bid was not opened on 15/7/2013 at 4.00 p.m. as its technical bid was not received upto the time of sealing the bid box. Even then, respondent No.4 was declared successful bidder. Petitioner submitted written objections to the Managing Director, RTDC but their objections were not entertained.
(3.) Ms.Sonal Singh, learned counsel for petitioners argued that while showroom of the petitioners is situated on the prescribed route on Amer Road, showroom of respondent No.4 is neither situated on the prescribed route of the city site seeing route of the Palace on Wheels/Rajasthan Royals on Wheels for tourists as the regular prescribed route of the city site seeing tour is from the Albert Hall situated in Ram Niwas Garden, Hawa Mahal, City Palace, Jalmahal and Amer Road, whereas the location of showroom of respondent No.4 is in Mansarovar, which does not come in the regular prescribed route of the city site seeing tour. Condition No.6(e. of conditions of bid documents has thus been violated. Condition No.6(f. also requires that there should be provision for lifts of upper floors. Condition No.6(d. thereof further requires that the bidder, showroom/firm should have showroom approved convenient parking space for 4-5 large size luxury coaches. Condition No.6(k. thereof further requires that the bidder should have spacious air-conditioned arcade/emporium to accommodate 100 persons at a time. It should have enough numbers of neat and clean toilets along with attendants. All these conditions were not fulfilled by respondent No.4, who according to the petitioners does not have sufficient space in the showroom.;