[2026:RJ-JP:25498-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 568/2026 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4564/2025 URN: SAW / 1222U / 2026 Radical Scientific Equipments Private Limited, 9th Milestone, Ambala-Jagadhri Road, P.O. Khudda Kalan, NH 444A, Ambala Cantt-133104A Through Head Institutional Business Vikram Singh Chouhan Through at Present Mr. Manish Mankotia. ----Appellant Versus 1. M/s. Chemicals India, 27, Mahadev Nagar, Near Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, 22 Godam, Jaipur 302019, Through Its Partner Shri Dhiraj Pathak 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. 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. 4. First Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Medical Education (Gr-1) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Second Appellate Authority, Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Rahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg assisted by Mr. Vibhu, Mr. Vashishth Sharma, Mr. Anupam Dwivedi HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order [2026:RJ-JP:25498-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-568/2026] 08/07/2026 1. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the Second Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the bid of the respondent and that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority. 2. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge it is identified to be a dispute raised by the competitive bidder whose own technical bid was rejected on the count that the quoted models were not of the desired specifications. The present appellant challenged this rejection before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority did not accept his contention and upheld the bid and qualifications of the writ petitioner. As second appeal was filed by the appellant, wherein the Second Appellate Authority also rejected the contentions of the appellant with regard to his eligibility, but at the same time set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority with regard to the eligibility of the writ petitioner, resulting in the writ petition being filed by the successful bidder to whom the work had also been allotted. The learned Single Judge has discussed at length the facts of the case as well as the law and found that the Second Appellate Authority without making any other observations in regard to the finding given by the First Appellate Authority, allowed the second appeal. We concur with the said observations and quote the relevant portion from the judgment of the learned Single Judge as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:25498-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-568/2026] "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." 3. The learned Single Judge has also factually examined the allegations relating to the genuineness of the documents with regard to the writ petitioner and found that on the complaints being filed against the writ petitioner, the Committee constituted by the Director, Medical Education Society has conducted a physical verification on 24.10.2024 and all the documents were found to be in order. 4. The Second Appellate Authority, while declaring the writ petitioner ineligible, has not taken into consideration the report of the said Committee. Thus, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be in any manner perverse or warrant any interference by us in this appeal. 5. The order passed is upheld. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SOURAV/6