[2025:RJ-JP:27072-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10701/2025 M/s Moga Builder, Through Its Proprietor's Power Of Attorney Holder Amit Moga S/o Brij Lal Moga Aged 38 Years Having Their Registered Address At V-12 Shyam Colony Opposite Ram Mandir Tonk Road Sanganer Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. The Secretary Water Resources Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Additional Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Zone, Jaipur Division, Rajasthan. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Zone, Jaipur Rajasthan. 5. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources, Jaipur 6. The Chief Accounts Officer, Water Resources Zone, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Panwar with Ms. Isha Belani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary for Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 21/07/2025 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rule, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2013"). [2025:RJ-JP:27072-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-10701/2025] 2. Briefly narrated the facts are that a notice inviting online bids was issued by the respondent on 15.04.2025, wherein the estimated value of work was shown Rs.403.65 lakhs. The petitioner was declared as successful bidder as L1 having offered an amount of Rs. 2,57,93,549/-. When the respondents found that there is a huge difference between the estimated cost and the amount offered by the petitioner, they asked him to pay 50% of the difference as Additional Performance Security. The same was done in light of Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013 reads thus: "75A. Additional Performance Security.- (I) In addition to Performance Security as specified in rule 75, an Additional Performance Security shall also be taken from the successful bidder in case of unbalanced bid. The Additional Performance Security shall be equal to fifty percent of Unbalanced Bid Amount. The Additional Performance Security shall be deposited in lump sum by the successful bidder before execution of Agreement. The Additional Performance Security shall be deposited through e-Grass, Demand Draft, Banker's Cheque, Government Securities [Bank Guarantee or Electronic Bank Guarantee (e-BG]. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule- (i) Unbalanced Bid means any bid below more than fifteen percent of Estimated Bid Value. (ii) Estimated Bid Value means value of subject matter of procurement mention in bidding documents by the Procuring Entity. (iii) Unbalanced Bid Amount means positive difference of eighty five percent of Estimated Bid Value minus Bid Amount Quoted by the bidder: [Provided that in case of unbalanced bid relating to IT & e-Governance Project having cost of twenty crore rupees or more and approved by the State e-Governance Mission Team (SeMT), Department of Information Technology & Communication, Rajasthan as a High Tech Project, the Additional Performance Security shall not required to be taken.] [2025:RJ-JP:27072-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-10701/2025] (2) The Additional Performance Security shall be refunded to the contractor after satisfactory completion of the entire work. The Additional Performance Security shall be forfeited by the Procuring Entity when work is not completed within stipulated period by the contractor. Provision for 'Unbalanced Bid' and' Additional Performance Security' shall be mentioned in the Bidding Documents by the Procuring Entity.] " 3. According to us, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in the aforesaid Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013. Such Provision has been introduced in order to ward off the possibilities of contractors biding too low and then not being able to complete the work. 4. Such Rule 75A is universally applicable to all the bidders and the same was well known to all the bidders including the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner having known about the applicability of Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013 cannot lay challenge to the terms of the bidding document. 5. If the facts of the present case are taken into account, there is a huge difference of about Rs.1.5 crores between the estimated cost of project as estimated by the respondents and the amount offered by the petitioner. That apart the difference between the bids offered by L1 and L2 is also too large. The petitioner has bidded a sum of Rs.2.57 crores, whereas L2 bidder had offered a sum of Rs.3.99 crores. It is precisely to mete out such situation, Rule 75A has been introduced under Rules of 2013. 6. We neither find any illegality or arbitrariness in the Rule 75 of the Rules of 2013, nor do we find any case worth interference on facts of present writ petition. The writ petition is thus dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27072-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-10701/2025] 7. In case, the petitioner furnishes the required Additional Performance Security within a period of fifteen days, the LOI issued to the petitioner shall not be cancelled. 8. Stay application stands disposed of. (DINESH MEHTA), J. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), J. Amit/Gaurav/28