SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) The controversy involved in this writ petition pertains to rejection of the technical bid submitted by the two petitioners herein as a joint venture in the tender No.2/2018-19 floated by the Chief Engineer, PHED, Jodhpur on the ground that the 0.5% security submitted by the two firms in Joint Venture was not compliant with the requirements of the Bid conditions to be specific on the aspect of earnest money deposit. The petitioner's bid was rejected on 24.08.2018 during technical evaluation.
(3.) Dr. Acharya drew the Court's attention to the pre-bid discussion held inter se between the bidders and the procuring entity wherein, this very query was raised and the bidding entity, issued a clarification 'no action proposed'. He submits that there existed a serious ambiguity in this regard when the query was raised, examined and left upon without any suggestion at the end of the procuring entity. He further submits that right on 24.08.2018, when the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on this aspect, a prompt application was submitted on its behalf to furnish the deficit earnest money to the tune of one and a half per cent of the estimated cost of the contract so as to be considered responsive in the bid evaluation process. However, it is a categoric case of the petitioner that neither was any reason assigned nor communicated for rejection of its bid on this hyper technical ground.;