[2026:RJ-JP:11349] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4946/2026 Shristi Infraengineering Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 1A /chandra Nagar Under Railway Bridge Gopalpura Bye Pass, Tonk Road Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302018 Through Its Authorized Representative - Shri Vishal Sharma S/o Shri Yogesh Sharma, Aged About 32 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Director And Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Directorate Of Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302016. 2. Chief Engineer, Local Self Government Department, Directorate Of Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302016. 3. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Masuda, District Beawar (Rajasthan) 4. M/s Ganesh Construction, (Proprietorship Firm) Through Its Proprietor Shri Ritesh Lodha Having Its Office At First Floor, Lodha Market, Shiv Bazar, Bijaynagar, District Beawar (Rajasthan)-305624 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Mehta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 17/03/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure-5), whereby the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:11349] (2 of 6) [CW-4946/2026] 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has failed in appreciating the material along with the technical bid and has rejected the technical bid of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short ‘the Act of 2012’) provides for an appeal against any decision, action or omission of the procuring entity, which 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 provisions of this Act, the rules and guidelines made thereunder and the terms of the pre-qualification documents, bidder [2026:RJ-JP:11349] (3 of 6) [CW-4946/2026] 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 sub-section (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 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 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 sub-section (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. [2026:RJ-JP:11349] (4 of 6) [CW-4946/2026] (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.” 5. On the issue of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a situation where there exists an alternative statutory remedy, as a settled principal of law, the following principles have been summarized by the Courts:- " (i) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (ii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iii) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained [2026:RJ-JP:11349] (5 of 6) [CW-4946/2026] when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (iv) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. " 6. In case of Whirlpool Corporation V/s Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. " 7. The Hon'be Apex Court in the case of Leelavathi N. And Ors. Vs. The state of Karnataka and Ors. Etc. [(Civil Appeal No(s) of 2025) Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). [2026:RJ-JP:11349] (6 of 6) [CW-4946/2026] 27984-27988 of 2023] decided on 16.10.2025 has observed as under:- "36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments leads us to the conclusion that where an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals. 37. Nevertheless, a writ petition under Article 226 may be still be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of such an alternative remedy in exceptional circumstances, including the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution; instances of ultra vires or illegal exercise of power by a statutory authority; violation of the principles of natural justice; or where the vires of the parent legislation itself is under challenge. While these exceptions have been carved out and reiterated by this Court in a catena of decisions, the facts of the present case do not fall within any of these exceptions so as to warrant the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court. " 8. Since the petitioner is having an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the Act of 2012, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, in view of the observations quoted above. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 10. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /200