- (1.) Petitioner-Firm, a supplier of cement and lime has preferred this writ petition with umpteen number of prayers as infra:- "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:- A. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained to proceed further with the tender issued dated 17.08.2015 (Annex-15) as the process of tender has still not been completed. B. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained from giving any kind of work order to any other person in pursuance of the tender issued dated 17.08.2015. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained from sanctioning any payment out of the public funds. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give opportunity to the petitioner in regard to the bid organized on 23.02.2015 (Annex-2) and revised tender issued dated 19.03.2015 (Annex-2). E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the fresh tender dated 17.08.2015 if at all previous tender was canceled without the knowledge of the petitioner. F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the participation of the petitioner in the said tender dated 17.08.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. G. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct tender proceeding with utmost transparency and compel the respondent to follow the norms and guidelines of the tender strictly in its sense. H. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, if Hon'ble court deems fit punished the authority who willfully disobey the guidelines of the tender as mentioned in the act will be punished. I. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. J. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) In order to project its grievances for craving aforementioned reliefs, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have acted unfairly to deprive the petitioner from participating in the tender process with intent to favour their blue eyed persons. It is also averred in the writ petition that the tender process has not been carried out in adherence of norms and regulations stipulated under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. To substantiate its allegation, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that at the threshold, tenders were invited under the MGNAREGA Scheme by the third respondent for supply of building and other material wherein the petitioner also participated. As per averments, lowest bidder is entitled for preference in awarding of contract provided he fulfills the requirement of depositing the earnest money within the stipulated time but instead of resorting to that procedure, the respondents have acted arbitrarily at their whims and fancy to award contract to a firm of their choice under the political influence. In substance, as per the version of the petitioner this sort of practice has resulted in depriving the petitioner from participating in the tender process. In all, five incumbents were the bidders quoting their respective rates of contract and from amongst them, Kisan Construction Company was the lowest bidder and that being so, it was called upon to deposit the security amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. It appears that Krishna Construction Company failed to deposit the requisite amount and that entailed cancellation of its tender. Thereafter, instead of giving chance to the second incumbent as per the assertion of the petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Akoda proposed the name of M/s Virit Construction Company who was willing to undertake tender work without following the prescribed norms. The proposal at the instance of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat was forwarded to the third respondent. Pursuant to the recommendation of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, the third respondent cancelled the bid of M/s Krishna Construction Company with a view to accommodate M/s Virit Construction Company, a firm belonging to neighbourhood Gram Panchayat, Kernada, Panchayat Samiti, Chohtan. This sort of action as per the petitioner clearly tantamounts to favouring M/s Virit Construction Company in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the fact remains that subsequently at the instance of the petitioner and some of the other incumbents, the matter was agitated before the higher authority and upon consideration of various representations, the higher authority made endeavour to cure this sort of irregularity. The intervention of the higher authority then facilitated issuance of a fresh tender on 17.08.2015 prescribing certain new and stringent conditions for the participants in the tender process. It is in that background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.;