[2025:RJ-JP:48464-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5321/2025 M/s Gauri Construction Company, Having Its Registered Office At A/C-4, Gayatri Sadan, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur- 302016 (Rajasthan) through its Proprietor Smt. Santosh Kanwar W/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 612, Ganpati Paradise, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur- 302039 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 Chief Engineer, Water Resources, Kota Division, Rajasthan. 4. The Superintending Engineer Water Resources, Circle Baran, Rajasthan. 5. The Executive Engineer Water Resources, Division -Iii, Bran, Rajasthan. 6. The Chief Accounts Officer, Water Resources, Zone, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manish Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with Mr.Hardik Singh, AAAG, Mr.Vinayam Saran, AAAG, Ms.Mansi Sharma, Adv., Ms.Mahi Choudhary, Adv. & Ms.Yuvika Pilania, Astt. GC. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 28/11/2025 1. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no more res- integra. [2025:RJ-JP:48464-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5321/2025] 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to Rule 75A of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Rules, 2013 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2013’). One of us while sitting in Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10701/2025 titled as M/s. Moga Builder Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 21.07.2025 had occasioned to examine the vires of Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013 and after considering the said provision, the Court reached to the conclusion that there is neither any illegality or arbitrariness in Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013 nor found any case worth to interfere therewith. 3. The Court further found that such a 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 and in order to avoid additional protection, the said proviso has been added. 4. The Court also observed that the bidders after having participated in the bidding document challenged the vires of the Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013, which cannot have been allowed. 5. Another Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12149/2025 titled as M/s. Rameshwar Lal Mana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 30.07.2025 relied upon the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Moga Builder (supra) and dismissed the writ petition. 6. A similar view was taken in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9728/2025 titled as M/s. Sheraram Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 12.11.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:48464-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5321/2025] considering and maintaining the consistency the Court upheld the vires of Rule 75A of the Rules of 2013 and also dismissed the writ petition. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner would always be free to challenge the conditions of contract by filing of an appeal under the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Himanshu Soni/40