Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a joint venture between M/s. GVPR Engineering Limited and M/s. HES Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Engineer, Projects, Public Health and Engineering Department, Project Division Bharatpur, declaring its bid non-responsive for a public procurement tender. The tender, identified as NIB No. 10/2023-24, was floated by the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State of Rajasthan for a water supply infrastructure project at Dholpur and Saipau Block, Package-01A. The estimated project cost was Rs 1,284.30 Crores, and the required credit limit was 15% thereof, amounting to Rs 192.65 Crores. The tender conditions required each member of a joint venture to meet at least 10% of the prescribed financial requirement, while the lead partner was required to meet at least 51%. The petitioner submitted its bid along with three other bidders, including respondent No. 4 SPML-JWL JV, M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, and M/s NCC Limited. After technical evaluation, the Additional Chief Engineer declared the petitioner non-responsive on the ground that it did not satisfy the financial criteria as the FIN-2 certificate submitted by the other joint venture partner, HES Infra Pvt. Ltd., was not in the prescribed format. The petitioner contended that the lead partner, M/s GVPR Engineering Limited, had an available credit limit of Rs 384.85 Crores, exceeding the entire requirement, and that HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. independently satisfied its 10% requirement with an available credit limit of Rs 20 Crores as certified by Bank of India on 21.05.2024. The petitioner argued that although the certificate was not strictly in the FIN-2 format, its contents sufficiently established the requisite credit facility, and the respondents misconstrued the certificate and denied the petitioner an opportunity to furnish clarification. The petitioner initially also challenged the constitution of the First and Second Appellate Authorities but later withdrew that prayer. The First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 had rejected the petitioner's appeals before the writ petition was filed. The High Court, by interim order dated 16.10.2024, directed that all further actions including issuance of Letter of Intent would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. A work order dated 03.09.2025 was issued subject to the final decision of the court. The provided extract does not contain the final decision of the court on the merits of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Public Procurement - Tender Eligibility Criteria - Financial Criteria for Joint Venture - Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - The tender required a credit limit of Rs 192.65 Crore (15% of estimated cost) with each joint venture member meeting at least 10% and the lead partner meeting at least 51%. The petitioner, a joint venture, claimed the lead partner had Rs 384.85 Crore available credit limit and the other partner had Rs 20 Crore as certified by Bank of India, though not in prescribed FIN-2 format. The question before the court was whether rejection of the bid for non-conformity with the format, without affording opportunity for clarification, was arbitrary. The court considered the purpose of credit limit requirement as ensuring sufficient finances for project execution. No final decision was available in the provided extract. (Paras 6-9.5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner's bid was wrongly declared non-responsive for failing to meet the financial criteria (credit limit requirement) because the FIN-2 certificate submitted by the other joint venture partner was not in the prescribed format, despite allegedly fulfilling the substantive credit limit requirement.
Law Points
- Public procurement
- tender eligibility
- financial criteria
- credit limit requirement
- FIN-2 certificate
- joint venture requirements
- judicial review of administrative tender decisions
- opportunity for clarification
- Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act
- 2012
Case Details
2026 LawText (RAJ) (07) 50
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14206/2024
Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Adhiraj Modi; Mr. Rakshit Jaimini; Mr. Daksh Pareek; Mr. Arjun Singh; Mr. Ashish Kabra; Mr. Moin Khan; Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General; Ms. Dhriti Ladha; Ms. Mahi Yadav, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG; Ms. Chelsi Agrawal; Mr. Rohan Mittal; Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora; Ms. Varuni Agrawal; Mr. Manish Lakhawat
M/s. GVPR Engineering Limited - M/s HES Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. JV, Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sridhar Reddy
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary; 2. Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department; 3. Addl. Chief Engineer, Project, PHED, Bharatpur; 4. SPML-JWL JV, Through Its Authorised Signatory Jai Prakash Gupta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging rejection of technical bid in public procurement tender
Remedy Sought
Quash order dated 29.06.2024 declaring petitioner non-responsive; declare petitioner's bid responsive and direct consideration of financial bid; any other appropriate order
Filing Reason
Petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive on ground that FIN-2 certificate submitted by joint venture partner did not conform to tender format and consequently did not meet financial criteria
Previous Decisions
First Appellate Authority under RTPP Act, 2012 rejected petitioner's appeal; Second Appellate Authority dismissed appeal; High Court passed interim order dated 16.10.2024 making further tender actions subject to outcome of writ petition
Issues
Whether the petitioner's bid was wrongly declared non-responsive for not meeting financial criteria (credit limit requirement) due to non-conformity of FIN-2 certificate with tender document format
Whether rejection of FIN-2 certificate solely for not being in exact prescribed format, despite substantive credit limit being met, was arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice by denying opportunity for clarification
Whether the tender conditions requiring each joint venture member to meet 10% and lead partner 51% were correctly applied to the petitioner's financial documents
Submissions/Arguments
The purpose of prescribing credit limit was to ensure sufficient finances for execution of work within stipulated time
Each joint venture member required to satisfy at least 10% of prescribed financial requirement and lead partner at least 51%
Lead partner M/s GVPR Engineering Limited fulfilled entire prescribed credit limit with available credit limit of Rs 384.85 Crores
Other partner HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. independently satisfied 10% requirement with Rs 20 Crores available credit limit as certified by Bank of India dated 21.05.2024
Though certificate was not strictly in FIN-2 format, its contents sufficiently established requisite credit facility
Respondents misconstrued the certificate and without affording opportunity for clarification wrongly concluded petitioner did not possess requisite available credit limit
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner's bid was declared non-responsive vide order dated 29.06.2024 on the ground that it did not satisfy the financial criteria (PQ Criteria), as the FIN-2 certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in conformity with the requirements of the tender document.
Vide order dated 16.10.2024, this Court directed that all further actions, including the issuance of the Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as "LOI"), shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.
Procedural History
Notice Inviting Bids No. 10/2023-24 floated by PHED; bids submitted by petitioner and others; technical bid opened on 20.10.2023; order dated 29.06.2024 declared petitioner non-responsive; petitioner appealed to First Appellate Authority under RTPP Act, which rejected appeal; Second Appellate Authority dismissed appeal; writ petition filed; interim order dated 16.10.2024 made further actions subject to final outcome; work order dated 03.09.2025 issued subject to final decision of court; hearing concluded and judgment reserved on 29.06.2026; judgment pronounced on 17.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012:
