Procuring entity must treat all bidders equally and cannot deny clarification to one while permitting another.

The Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED), Rajasthan, invited bids for a major water supply project (Package-01A) with an estimated cost of ₹1,284.30 Crores.

On 29.06.2024, the Petitioner was declared "non-responsive" because a bank certificate (FIN-2) provided by its JV partner, M/s HES Infra, was not in the exact prescribed format and supposedly did not show available credit limits.

The Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) allowed Respondent No. 4 (SPML-JWIL JV) to clarify deficiencies in its bidding capacity affidavit (FIN-3).

While the Petitioner’s appeals were dismissed and a writ petition was filed, the State issued a Work Order to Respondent No. 4 on 03.09.2025 (at a cost ~₹211 Crores higher than Petitioner's bid), specifically making it subject to this Court’s final decision.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the Petitioner being an unregistered JV and not specifically challenging subsequent appellate orders.

2. Whether the Procuring Entity acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by seeking clarifications from one bidder (Respondent No. 4) while rejecting the Petitioner’s bid for a curable defect.

3. Whether the requirement of the FIN-2 certificate constituted a "material deviation" justifying outright rejection without clarification under the RTPP Act and Rules.

The Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement (RTPP) Act, 2012 and the RTPP Rules, 2013, specifically Rule 59 (determination of responsiveness), Rule 60 (clarification of bids), and Rule 61 (waiving non-material non-conformities).

The "Doctrine of Merger" is not of universal application in administrative law and does not bar the review of an original illegal order (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh).

Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not bar writ petitions as they are not "suits" (Umesh Goel v. H.P. Coop. Group Housing Society).

Principles of "fair play in action" and non-discrimination under Article 14 (Ram Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Banshidhar Construction (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.).

The Respondents practiced "gross discrimination" by granting Respondent No. 4 liberal opportunities to rectify FIN-3 (a more critical document regarding bidding capacity) while summarily ousting the Petitioner over a technicality in FIN-2.

Under Rule 59(3), a rejection is only valid if the omission is "material"; here, the Bank of India later clarified that the Petitioner did possess the requisite ₹20 Crore credit limit at the time of the bid, making the initial defect a "non-material non-conformity" rectifiable under Rule 61.

The "sole bidder" situation created by the State resulted in an avoidable burden of ₹211 Crores on the public exchequer.

A JV need not be a registered partnership to invoke writ jurisdiction and the Work Order was explicitly issued "subject to the outcome of this petition," thus preventing the creation of any equity in favor of Respondent No. 4.

The Court set aside all subsequent actions, including the LOI, agreement, and Work Order in favor of Respondent No. 4, and directed the Respondents to open the Petitioner's financial bid and, if found to be L-1 and otherwise eligible, award the contract to the Petitioner forthwith.