Sandeep Mehta, J. - Through this writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner firm M/s. Daniel Furniture (P) Limited has approached this court for assailing the orders dated 01.02.2018 (Annex.27) and 16.02.2018 (Annex.30) passed by the respondent Madarsa Board and to direct the respondents to issue the work order to the petitioner company in terms of its finalized bid.

2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a private limited company involved in the manufacture of steel furniture, and has been given the certificate of a Small Scale Enterprise by the District Industry Center, Jodhpur. The respondent Madarsa Board, Jaipur convened a meeting on 19.12.2016 and decided by resolution dated 22.12.2016 to issue a bid for procuring 34,451 Dual Desk and Bench (hereinafter referred to as bid items). In this very meeting, it was decided that the bid item is a reserve item in terms of the notification dated 19.11.2015. The Board issued the e-bid notice No.1/2016-17, which was published on 27.12.2016. The last date for submission of bid was stipulated as 27.01.2017 in this bid document. The petitioner was the sole bidder, which submitted its bid in furtherance of the bid notification. The said bid of the petitioner, though found to be in order, was cancelled by the Board vide order dated 31.01.2017. Thereafter, another bid notice was issued on 23.02.2017, wherein three participants including the petitioner company applied for award of the work order. The e-bids of the two other participants were rejected, whereas the bid offered by the petitioner company was accepted. Against the rejection of their bids, the remaining unsuccessful bidders filed appeals, which were allowed by order dated 17.04.2017 by the second appellate authority in the following terms:-

"Madarsa Board will re-invite tenders. Only SME unit of Rajasthan will be permitted in bidding documents who have joint venture with Plastic Moulded material manufacture or supplier. There will be no conditions regarding turnover or liquid assets as indicated in letter of GOI No.25(2)2011-MA dated 14.10.2011. This decision will be published on State Public Procurement Portal as per section-17 of the Act."

3. In furtherance of the said order of the second appellate authority, a fresh e-bid was uploaded by the respondent Board, in which the number of bid items was increased to 50,041. One Mr. P.R. Sharma participated in this process as representative of the Industries Department. The representation of the Industries Department was meant for safeguarding the interests of the local entrepreneurs. The petitioner again participated in this e-bid process and was the sole bidder. However, it is alleged that Mr. P.R. Sharma, who participated in the pre-bid meeting committee, was acting in a malafide manner and deliberately did not sign the minutes of the meeting, with an intention to subterfuge the bid process. He clandestinely sought opinion of the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology (CIPET). The petitioner has alleged that Mr. Sharma was interested in awarding the tender to an out of State company, namely, Royal Sales Corporation, for securing undue gain and for satisfying his vested interests. Thus, motivated with this malafide objective, Mr. Sharma, without any direction or opinion in this regard, sought opinion of the CIPET on 31.10.2017 about the nature of the bid items. The petitioner claims that CIPET has no role to play in the instant tender process and its opinion is neither relevant nor binding on the Board. Despite that, Mr. Sharma procured the opinion of CIPET and pressurized the respondent Board so as to award the tender in favour of Royal Sales Corporation. Thereafter, the Corporation appears to have filed a complaint regarding the bid process and acting thereupon, the Joint Secretary of the Minorities Department sought a report of alleged anomalies in the tender process. The petitioner further claims that its technical bid was found responsive and thus, a meeting for finalizing the bid process was convened by the purchase committee on 21.11.2017. The purchase committee held that the rates quoted by the petitioner company were justified. However, it is alleged that acting at the behest of the aforesaid Mr. P.R. Sharma, who was dancing to the tunes of the private corporation of Mumbai, the bid process in question was arbitrarily cancelled by order dated 16.02.2018 causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that this entire action is malafide, arbitrary and was perpetrated by the corrupt and malafide actions of Mr. P.R. Sharma. On these grounds, the petitioner has approached this court for assailing the impugned order and seeking a direction for finalization of the bid process in question.

4. The respondents have filed a detailed reply to the writ petition, wherein the averments made by the petitioner are controverted. It is claimed that the tender process was cancelled for technical reasons, field whereof is exclusively occupied by the competent authority and that the impugned action is perfectly in accordance with the requirement of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012. The respondents have also claimed that the bid item was not within the reserved list of the small scale industries of the State and that is why, the bid could not be finalized. The bid item was wrongly considered to be of reserved category in the tender process and the intimation to this effect was duly conveyed by the representative of the Industries Department and hence, there was no option with the Board, but to cancel the tender process, which was vitiated. However, it is admitted in the reply that the Royal Sales Corporation, at whose instance the procurement process appears to have been frustrated, did not submit its bid. It is relevant to mention here that Mr. P.R. Sharma, Deputy Director, Industries Department, who is impleaded as party in the writ petition in his personal capacity, has not come forward to file reply to the writ petition despite service of notice.

5. Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 4., annexing therewith copies of certain newspaper reports indicating Mr. P.R. Sharmas attempts in corrupt practices at the instance of the firm Royal Sales Corporation.

6. Looking to this development, the court directed Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned AAG, to appear and apprise the court as to whether any enquiry or otherwise of corruption has been initiated against Mr. P.R. Sharma for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act amongst others. Pursuant to such direction, Mr. Thakur has placed on record a factual report dated 23.10.2018, as per which, an FIR No.112/2018 has been registered against the Public Servant Mr. P.R. Sharma with allegations of indulging in corrupt practices for giving undue advantage to M/s. Royal Sales Corporation. During preliminary enquiry, statement of one Mr. Mohd. Saleem Khan, being the Secretary of the Rajasthan Madarsa Board, was recorded, wherein involvement of Mr. P.R. Sharma in corrupt practices at the instance of the firm M/s. Royal Sales Corporation, is alleged.

7. Manifestly, the only reason for which the bid process was alleged to be defective and was cancelled, is that the bid items were not reserved items for procurement through small scale industries only. This conclusion is based on the opinion of CIPET procured by Mr. P.R. Sharma in an underhand manner. Otherwise also, CIPET has no relevance for the subject procurement process. The respondents have failed to dispute the fact that the bid item has a plastic competent and thus, the same is required to be considered as scheduled item reserved for procurement through small scale industries only. Contrary plea to this effect taken in the reply of the respondents is patently negated from the entries No.30 and 57 of the schedule, which have been reproduced by the petitioner at para No.2 of the writ petition. Contents of para 2 of the writ petition are not disputed by the respondents in their reply. M/s. Royal Sales Corporation, at whose instance, the entire impugned action was stage-managed, did not participate in the bid process. The connivance of Mr. P.R. Sharma, a Public Servant with the said private player is writ large on the face of the record. During the course of arguments, Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned AAG, and Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, learned AGC, representing the respondents, candidly conceded that the entire action of cancelling the successful bid of the petitioner company and revoking the procurement process appears to have been precipitated owing to the underhand fraudulent design hatched upon in connivance of Mr. P.R. Sharma with the Royal Sales Corporation. There was no occasion for Mr. P.R. Sharma to have procured the opinion from CIPET, which is neither having any locus to offer opinion in the matter nor its report is relevant to the instant tender process.

8. In this background, this court is of the firm opinion that the impugned orders dated 01.02.2018 (Annex.27) and 16.02.2018 (Annex.30), whereby the tender process in question was cancelled, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are thus, quashed and struck down. The respondents shall proceed further with the tender process treating the petitioners technical bid to be responsive. The procurement process shall be completed at the earliest in terms of NIT. A cost of Rs. 5 lacs is imposed upon the respondent No.5 Mr. P.R. Sharma, Deputy Director, Industries Department for misusing his official capacity so as to taint and frustrate the tender process. The cost shall be recovered from the salary of Mr. P.R. Sharma (respondent No.5) and shall be appropriated in the funds of the State Legal Services Authority. Suitable disciplinary action shall also be taken against Mr. P.R. Sharma. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Industries Department for compliance.

9. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. The stay application is also disposed of.