- (1.) This petition portrays a battle royal for winning a contract of shopping emporia for Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels for the season 2014-15 for Jaisalmer. In this fierce legal battle, two competitors, i.e. petitioner and the fourth respondent, are pitted against each other.
(2.) Although matter comes up on an application of the respondents for vacation/modification of the ad-interim stay order but with the consent of rival parties it is heard finally at this stage. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that second respondent Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited (for short, 'Corporation'), a Government of Rajasthan undertaking, is involved as a catalyst to develop and execute projects and schemes to accelerate tourism in the State. For promoting tourism in the State of Rajasthan the Corporation is also organizing package tours, fairs, festivals etc for visiting tourists. In order to allure tourists, the Corporation is also offering exclusive shopping and transport services by providing necessary infrastructure on its own as well as by calling tenders in this behalf. In furtherance of achieving its basic aims and objects, Corporation floated a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) on 13th of August 2014 for empanelment of shopping emporia for Palace on Wheels and Royal Rajasthan on Wheels for the season 2014-2015 for Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Udaipur and Agra. The last date for submission of tender was notified as 27th August 2014 with complete itinerary for opening of technical and financial bids. Being eligible, the petitioner offered its bid for Jaisalmer by submitting tender on 27th August 2014, which was opened on 28th August 2014 and result of the technical bid was uploaded on the website of the Corporation on the same day. As per result, on evaluation of technical bid, name of the petitioner was not recommended for financial bid whereas names of fourth respondent and some other incumbent were recommended. Precisely, on evaluation of the technical bid, it was found that petitioner has not fulfilled Condition No.1 so as to call for financial bid.
(3.) Taking exception to rejection of its technical bid, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that non-recommendation of its name for opening of financial bid was on an absolutely vague, cryptic and absurd premise and decision to its detriment is per-se arbitrary. The petitioner has also assailed the action of the Corporation on the ground that decision to its detriment is in clear violation of statutory requirements contained under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act 2012 (for short, 'Act of 2012'). With a view to substantiate its afflictions in this behalf, the petitioner while referring to Section 7 of the Act of 2012, has laid emphasis on Section 25 of the Act of 2012 and alleged that authorities have not recorded reasons in writing for exclusion of its bid and the decision has also not been conveyed to it. The petitioner has also taken shelter of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules 2012 (for short, 'Rules of 2012') and while relying on Rule 60 of the Rules of 2012, it has asserted that Bid Evaluation Committee has not made any endeavor to call upon the bidders for verification and in utmost haste manner result has been declared.;