[2026:RJ-JP:15261] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4564/2025 M/s. Chemicals India, 27, Mahadev Nagar, Near Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, 22 Godam, Jaipur 302019, Through Its Partner Shri Dhiraj Pathak ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Directorate Of Medical Education), Chikitsa Shiksha Bhavan, Near Pink Square Mall, Opp. Psychiatric Centre, Janta Colony, Jaipur 302004 (Raj.) Through Director. 3. First Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Medical Education (Gr-1) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Second Appellate Authority, Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Redical Scientific Equipments Private Limited, 9Th Milestone, Ambala-Jagadhri Road, P.o. Khuda Kalan, Nh 444A, Ambala Cantt-133104A, Thruogh Head Institutional Business Vikram Singh Chouhan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg, Mr. R.K. Daga, Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, Mr. Sahil Sharma, Mr. Anupam Dwivedi, Mr. Pankaj Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC along-with Mr. Yashwant Singh for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr. Sanjay Rahar for respondent No.5 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (2 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] Order Arguments concluded on ::: March 13, 2026 Order reserved on ::: March 13, 2026 Order pronounced on ::: April 15, 2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a challenge to the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Second Appellate Authority, Medical Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, in Second Appeal No. RS/08- 2024/216/40/VK/SA dated 01.08.2024 and prayed to upheld the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Authority and further prayed to restore the work order dated 09.10.2024 in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first appeal filed by the respondent No.5- Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. before the learned First Appellate Authority was not even maintainable in view of the provisions of section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act of 2012’) as the financial bid was opened on 13.06.2024 in favour of the petitioner and the technical bid submitted by the No.5- Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was not found to be responsive. It is further submitted that out of all the bidders, the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be responsive which was opened on 14.12.2023 and the status was uploaded on [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (3 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] 12.06.2024. He further submitted that the financial bid submitted by the petitioner was also accepted and the work order was also assigned to the petitioner and during the commencement of the work order i.e. supply of the required equipments, the first appeal preferred by the No.5- Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2024 and the second appeal filed by the No.5- Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was allowed vide order dated 03.02.2025, which caused a great harassment and financial loss to the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that after the verification of M/s. Digilab Bio Analytical Instruments Pvt. Ltd., which is said to be the original supplier of Binocular Microscope (Faculty) to the petitioner- M/s. Chemicals India by the Officers of the Rajasthan Medical Education, it was found to be perfect. Counsel submitted that once the verification report has been received as regards the production of the equipments to be supplied, the order of the Second Appellate Authority is without consideration of the verification report and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel also submitted that the First Appellate Authority after having made due consideration of the material available on the record, dismissed the first appeal filed by the respondent No.5/ appellant giving out the findings and observations on due application of mind over the material available on the record, however, the Second Appellate Authority without [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (4 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] giving any findings and observations given by the First Appellate Authority, allowed the second appeal and set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority. Counsel further submitted that the Second Appellate Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction for the reason that the first appeal was preferred by the respondent No.5/ appellant with a challenge to the rejection of his technical bid and there was no challenge to the technical bid or financial bid of the petitioner. However, the Second Appellate Authority has given the findings as regards the bid of the petitioner and ordered to cancel the work order issued in favour of the petitioner without there being any favourable order in favour of respondent No.5/ appellant as regards rejection of his technical bid. 3. Mr. Archit Bohra, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sanjay Rahar, counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that the order of the Second Appellate Authority is just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case. It is also submitted by them that the action of the respondents in rejection of the technical bid of the respondent No.5 was illegal and arbitrary. It was also submitted that the second appeal was maintainable and the first appeal was filed within a limitation period of 10 days. Counsels have raised certain issues regarding the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner along-with his bid. [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (5 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and made scrutiny of the material available on the record. 5. As per the facts on record, the respondent No.2 issued a bid invitation notice dated 27.06.2023 inviting tenders for procuring Binocular Microscope (Faculty) for Government Medical Colleges, Rajasthan for the period 2023-24. As per the terms and conditions of the bid notice, the bid was of two stages process i.e. the first technical bid and the second financial bid. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and four other bidders submitted their technical and financial bids. The tender was opened On-line on e-procurement system of Government of Rajasthan on 14.12.2023. The technical bid and the evaluation report of the said tender was uploaded on e-procurement Website on 12.06.2024 wherein only the petitioner’s technical bid was found to be responsive and the technical bid of the remaining bidders was rejected. The technical bid of respondent No.5 was rejected on the count that ‘quoted models not as per desired specification’. 6. Thereafter, the financial bid was opened on 13.06.2024 and the petitioner being the eldest one, his bid was accepted. A letter of acceptance of the petitioner’s bid was issued on 21.06.2024 and thereafter the petitioner deposited the security amount and entered into an agreement signed on [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (6 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] 11.07.2024 and further a rate contract was also signed on 15.07.2024 for a period of two years. 7. In the meantime, the responden No.5- Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. preferred an appeal on 13.06.2024 on various grounds and prayed that detailed explanation on the reasons of rejection of his bid be disclosed and the investigation be conducted by the Senior Officers by forming a neutral Technical Committee and in the meantime subsequent procurement stage i.e. the price bid was opened and order placement was to be stayed. The first appeal filed by the respondent No.5/ appellant was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2024. Against the order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondent No.5/ appellant preferred second appeal before the Second Appellate Authority raising the issues regarding acceptance of the technical bid of the petitioner. 8. The Second Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.02.2025 allowed the second appeal in terms of section 11(ii) and (v) of the Act of 2012 and held that the bidding process leading to declaration of petitioner-M/s. Chemicals India as the successful bidder stands cancelled and directing procuring entity to cancel LoI / work order issued in favour of the petitioner and further ordered that the proceedings should be initiated for forfeiting the bid security and debarring the petitioner from participating in future procurements for three years. [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (7 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] 9. Section 38 of the Act of 2012 provides for appeals against the decision, action or omission of the procuring entity. Section 38 of the Act of 2012 is quoted as under:- "38. Appeals.- (1) Subject to section 40, if any bidder or prospective bidder is aggrieved that any decision, action or omission of the procuring entity is in contravention to the provisions of this Act or the rules or guidelines issued thereunder, he may file an appeal to such officer of the procuring entity, as may be designated by it for the purpose, within a period of ten days or such other period as may be specified in the pre-qualification documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, as the case may be, from the date of such decision or action, omission, as the case may be, clearly giving the specific ground or grounds on which he feels aggrieved: Provided that after the declaration of a bidder as successful in terms of section 27, the appeal may be filed only by a bidder who has participated in procurement proceedings: Provided further that in case a procuring entity evaluates the technical bid before the opening of the financial bid, an appeal related to the matter of financial bid may be filed only by a bidder whose technical bid is found to be acceptable. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub- section (1), the officer designated under that sub-section shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties, determine as to whether or not the procuring entity has complied with the [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (8 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] provisions of this Act, the rules and guidelines made thereunder and the terms of the prequalification documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, as the case may be, and pass an order accordingly which shall, subject to the order passed under sub-section (5), be final and binding on the parties to the appeal. (3) The officer to whom an appeal is filed under subsection (1) shall deal with the appeal as expeditiously as possible and shall endeavour to dispose it of within thirty days from the date of filing of the appeal. (4) If the officer designated under sub- section (1) fails to dispose of the appeal filed under that sub-section within the period specified in subsection (3), or if the bidder or prospective bidder or the procuring entity is aggrieved by the order passed under subsection (2), the bidder or prospective bidder or the procuring entity, as the case may be, may file a second appeal to an officer or authority designated by the State Government in this behalf within fifteen days from the expiry of the 30 period specified in sub-section (3) or of the date of receipt of the order passed under sub-section (2), as the case may be. (5) On receipt of an appeal under sub- section (4), the officer or authority designated under that sub-section shall, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties, determine as to whether or not the procuring entity has complied with the provisions of this Act, the rules and guidelines made thereunder and the terms of the pre-qualification [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (9 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, as the case may be, and pass an order accordingly which shall be final and binding on the parties to the appeal. (6) The officer or authority to which an appeal is filed under subsection (4) shall deal with the appeal as expeditiously as possible and shall endeavour to dispose it of within thirty days from the date of filing of the appeal: Provided that if the officer or authority to which an appeal is filed under sub-section (4) is unable to dispose of the appeal within the aforesaid period, he shall record reason for the same. (7) The officer or authority to which an appeal may be filed under sub-section (1) or (4) shall be indicated in the prequalification documents, bidder registration documents or bidding documents, as the case may be. (8) Every appeal under sub-sections (1) and (4) shall be filed in such form and manner and shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. (9) While hearing an appeal under this section, the officer or authority concerned shall follow such rules of procedure as may be prescribed. (10) No information which would impair the protection of essential security interests of India, or impede the enforcement of law or fair competition, or prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of the bidder or the procuring entity, shall be disclosed in a proceeding under this section." [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (10 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] 10. As per the facts available on the record, the technical bid was opened on 14.12.2023 and the status was uploaded on 12.06.2024 and further financial bid was opened on 13.06.2024 and the status was uploaded on 13.06.2024 itself. The respondent No.5/ appellant preferred a first appeal oni 13.06.2024. As the facts regarding filing of an appeal on 13.06.2024 mentioned in para No.8 of the writ petition has been admitted by the respondents No.1 and 2- the State and the Rajasthan Medical Education Society. Before filing of the appeal the financial bid was also opened and the bid of the petitioner being the lowest one was accepted by the Procuring Entity. Second proviso to section 38 of the Act of 2012 clearly speaks that any appeal related to the financial bid may be filed only by a bidder whose technical bid is found to be acceptable. In the present case, the technical bid of the respondent No.5/ appellant was found to be not responsive and rejected. Therefore, cancelling the LoI/ work order issued in favour of the petitioner by the Second Appellate Authority can be safely held to be illegal and arbitrary. 11. The first appeal filed by the respondent No.5/ appellant against the rejection of his technical bid was dismissed with the following observations:- " अपपललरर दलरल ककयय गयय अकभकरन एवव अपपल मम पसततत ककयय गयय दसतलवयजज कय पररपयकय मम उपलपन सवसरल कय पकतकनकध शप रलजयश कत मलर मपणल, सहलयक लयखलकधकलरप- परम नय कलकखत दसतलवयजज कय सलर अकभकरन ककयल हह कक [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (11 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] कबड कल तकनपकक ममलयलवकन एक कनषपक तकनपकक कमयटप दलरल ककयल गयल हह कजसमम ककसप पकलर कल पकपलत नहह ककयल गयल हह। कलकखत दसतलवयज पसततत करतय हहए यह भप अवगत करलयल कक ' कनकवदल कक SECTION:-INSTRUTION TO BIDDERS (ITB) कक शतर Eligibility of bidders: 1.3.5:- The bidder must be manufacture, or where permitted, distributor, authorized dealer, registered bidder, bono-fide dealer in the Goods and if required he shall furnish necessary proof of same in the specified format. Where applicable, proof of authorization by the manufacture or country distributor in india, shall be enclose. मम कल उलयख हह। चमवकक उक कनकवदल मम distributor/authorized dealer हयतत भप आमवकतत कक गई रप। कजसमम फमर M/S Chemical India Ltd. दलरल कनकवदल मम manufacture /authorization पररकशष 8 व 9 पसततत ककयल गयल हह जज कक कनकवदल कक शतरव कय अनतरप हह। अतत कनकवदल मम dealer/distributor कय रप मम भलग लयनय पर manufacture अनतसलर कय उदजग आधलर पसततत करनय कल उलयख नहह हजनय सय कनकवदल कक दसतलवयजप जलवच मम manufacture कय उदजग आधलर पर कटपपणप अपयककत नहह हह। फमर महससर Chemical India Ltd. दलरल पसततत उतपलदनकतलर फमर महससर डपजपलहब कय उदजग आधलर कज ऑनललईन वयरपफलई कर कलयल गयल हह। फमर दलरल पसततत उदजग आधलर मम 3250-Manufacture of medical and dental instruments and supplies तरल 32503-Manufacture of medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture such as operating tables, examination tables, dentists' chairs etc. कल उलयख हह। उदजग आधलर मम आईटम Binocular Microscope हयतत पपरक सय NIC Code (26600) कल अवकन उपलबध हह परनतत कनकवदल शतरव कय अनतसलर dealer/ distributor कज भलग लयनय कक अनतमकत रप। अतत उदजग आधलर पमलण पत कय हजनय यल न हजनय सय कनकवदल कक कलयरवलहप कज पभलकवत नहह करतल हह। कनकवदल कय तकनपकक मलपदणडज कय अनतसलर कनकवदलदलतलओव कय दलरल कजटयड आईटम कय 'The complete unit shall be US FDA approved/European CE' हजनय कय सवबवध मम शतर कल उलयख हह। कनकवदल अवतगरत कजटयड आईटम हयतत पसततत ककयल जलनय वललय सकटरकफकय ट कय US FDA approved/European CE कय US from Notified Body सय हजनय कक शतर कल उलयख नहह हह। अतत अपपलकतलर फमर दलरल पसततत यमरजकपयन सपई नजकटफलईड बबडप कय डलयरयकटपवसस पर कटपपणप अपयककत नहह हह। [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (12 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] कनकवदल कय अवतगरत फमर महससर Chemical India दलरल पसततत Certificate एजयनसप ICR Poiska दलरल जलरप ककयल गयल हह जज कक यमरजकपयन यमकनयन कय अवतगरत आनय वललय पजललड गणरलजय मम हजनय सय उक फमर दलरल पसततत सकटरकफकय ट कनकवदल कक शतर कय अनतसलर हह। इस सवबवध मम बलयजमयकडकल इवकजकनयर सय पलप कक गई ररपजटर पसततत कक गई हह एवव बलयजमयकडकल इवजपकनयर सय सतयलकपत करवल कलयल गयल हह। कनकवदल सवखयल 53/2023-2024 आईटन/ उपकरण Microscope Binocular (Faculty) कय कलए जलरप Corrigendum /Addendum/Clarification कय आदयश कमलवक 8290 कदनलवक 21.11.2023 कय Addition कवनदत "Bidder with installation and user satisfaction from government organization shall be preferred. Relevant Document Shall be enclosed" कक शतर कय कम मम फमर M/S Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. दलरल सफल कनकवदलदलतल फमर M/S Chemical India Ltd. दलरल पसततत Performance Report froni Bharati Vidhapeeth एवव GeM Orders कज Forged बतलयल हह। इस सवदभर मम कनकवदल कक शतरव कय अनतसलर installation and user satisfaction Report government organization सय मलवगप गई रप। उक कय कम मम सफल कनकवदलदलतल फमर M/S Chemical India Ltd. दलरल RUHS कक ररपजटर तकनपकक बजलप कय सलर पसततत हहई हह। सफल बजलपदलतल फमर M/S Chemical India Ltd. दलरल Bharati Vidhapeeth कक Performance ररपजटर भप पसततत कक गई हह, लयककन Bharati Vidhapeeth, government organization नहह हजनय कय कलरण उनकय दलरल पसततत कक गई ररपजटर कल कनकवदल कक शतरव कय तहत कजई औकचतय नहह हह एवव GeM कय Orjers कय सवदभर मम भप कनवयदन हह कक कनकवदल कक शतरव कय तहत ककसप भप पकलर कय आपमकतर आदयश नहह चलहय गयय रय। अतत सफल कनकवदलदलतल कमर दलरल कनकवदल मम चलहय गयय सभप दसतलवयजज कक पमकतर कक गई हह एवव चलहय गयय सभप दसतलवयजज कल उपलपन सवसरल दलरल जलवच / परपकण उपरलवत फमर कज Responsive घजकषत ककयल गयल हह। इस पकलर सय फमर महससर M/S Radical Scientific Equipments Pvt. Ltd. दलरल आईटम / उपकरण Microscope Binocular (Faculty) कय कलए पसततत परम अपपल कय कलए यह भप उलयखनपय हह कक अपपललरर फमर सवयव तकनपकक डयमज मम Non-Responsive हहई हह तरल उपलपन पककयल कज बलकधत करनय कय उदयशय सय Responsive फमर कय कवरद अपपल दलयर कक हह। उपलपन पककयल पमणर हज चतकक हह, Responsive फमर कज LOA (Letter of Acceptance) जलरप ककयल [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (13 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] जल चतकल हह। अपपल मम उठलए गए आधलर कमथयल एवव सहप नहह हजनय कय कलरण अपपल सवपकलर यजगय नहह हह। अपपललरर कय करन कय पररपयकय मम उपलपन सवसरल दलरल पसततत अकभकरन कल आरटपपपपप अकधकनयम, 2012 एवव कनयम, 2013 कय पररपयकय मम अवलजकन एवव कववयचन ककयल गयल। अपपललरर दलरल पसततत कक गई कबड मम कजटयड Microscope Binocular कबड मम अवककत तकनपकक मलपदणडज कय अनतसलर नहह हजनय एवव अपजललरर दलरल M/S Chemical India Ltd. कय दलरल कजटयड Digilab Microscope Binocular कय सवबवध मम पसततत दसतलवयज Forge हजनय कय सवबवध मम उपलपन सवसरल दलरल पसततत तथय एवव दसतलवयजज कय आधलर पर अपपल सवपकलयर नहह हह। अतत अपपललरर दलरल पसततत कक गई अपपल कनरसत कक जलतप हह।" 12. The Second Appellate Authority without making any otherwise observations in regard to the findings given by the First Appellate Authority allowed the second appeal. It is the basic principle of law that when an Appellate Authority in an appeal gives certain findings and observations and the order of the Appellate Authority is being reversed by the higher Appellate Authority then it is obligatory upon the Second Appellate Authority to give reasons and the findings regarding the findings and particularly the observations given by the First Appellate Authority, if it differs in opinion and passes the reversal order. 13. The respondent No.5/ appellant filed an appeal with a challenge to the order of rejection of his technical bid which has been held to be non- responsive. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the respondent No.5/ appellant and the Second Appellate Authority without there being any [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (14 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] favourable findings and observations in favour of the respondent No.5/ appellant as regards rejection of the technical bid has ordered to cancel the LoI/ work order issued in favour of the petitioner and further to initiate the proceedings for forfeiting the bid security and debarring from participating in future procurements. Until and unless some order is passed in favour of the respondent No.5/ appellant in connection with rejection of his technical bid, the cancellation of the LoI or the work order given in favour of the petitioner on the basis of his financial bid being lowest one, is per se illegal, arbitrary and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Second Appellate Authority because the scope of the appeal is only consideration of issue of the rejection of the technical bid of the respondent No.5/ appellant. Only if there is an order regarding acceptance of the technical bid of the respondent No.5/ appellant, thereafter, only any interference can be made in the LoI or the work order in favour of the petitioner that too if law permits at the stage when the petitioner has commenced the work. On the complaints being filed against the petitioner as regards his genuineness pertaining to the documents submitted along-with the bid for supply of the Binocular Microscope (Faculty) by the original manufacturer M/s. Digilab Bio Analytical Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Noida, the Committee constituted by the Director, Medical Education Society, Jaipur, vide order dated 23.10.2024 made a physical verification [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (15 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] of M/s. Digilab Bio Analytical Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Noida on 24.10.2024 and everything was found to be in order. The Second Appellate Authority while passing the order has not taken care of the verification report. 14. As per the bid notice and the rate contract dated 15.07.2025 the technical specifications of Binocular Microscope (Faculty) was that the complete unit shall be US FDA approved / European CE. The Second Appellate Authority could not point out any deficiency in the technical specifications of the equipments to be supplied by the petitioner. 15. As per the facts available on the record, the technical bid of the respondent No.5/ appellant was rejected at the initial stage and not found to be responsive and in such circumstances he has no right to interfere in the further financial bid procurement process including acceptance of the bid, issuance of the work order and performance of the contract till any order as regards acceptance of his technical bid is passed by any authority competent under the Act of 2012. In the present case, the order of rejection of the technical bid of the respondent No.5/ appellant has never been set aside by any authority. 16. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. 17. The order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Second Appellate Authority, Medical Education [2026:RJ-JP:15261] (16 of 16) [CW-4564/2025] Department, Government of Rajasthan, is set aside. The letter of acceptance dated 21.06.2024 (Annex.6). agreement dated 11.07.2024 (Annex.7) and rate of contract dated 15.07.2024 (Annex.8) are declared as restored and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to perform the work of supply of Binocular Microscope (Faculty) as per the contract agreement. 18. In view of the order passed in the main petition, any stay or interim order passed shall stand vacated. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/JR