Shreenathji Sakhi Seva Mandal vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's disqualification was justified. The primary issue revolved around the petitioner's VAT and GST registration and clearances. The tender required a minimum of three years of experience and a turnover of Rs. 6 crores in at least one of the preceding two years. The petitioner submitted a certificate stating VAT registration from May 21, 2016, and GST registration from January 26, 2018, with no dues as of June 6, 2018. However, evidence showed the petitioner's TIN number was cancelled on July 1, 2016, and the petitioner admitted that VAT registration was valid only for a short period due to non-filing of returns. The Court found that this did not fulfill the essential requirement of having valid VAT registration for the preceding years, which was crucial for establishing the claimed turnover. Therefore, the authorities were correct in rejecting the petitioner's bid based on the provided certificate.

Facts

The petitioner, Shreenathji Sakhi Seva Mandal, challenged its disqualification at the technical stage in a tender process initiated by the Gujarat State Tribal Education Society (respondent no.2) for supplying meals to students. The tender was for the period commencing May 25, 2018. The petitioner had been a supplier for several years. Respondent no.2 rejected the petitioner's bid, citing non-compliance with several essential tender conditions. The petitioner contended that its disqualification was unlawful, its rates were competitive, and respondent no.4 was the sole surviving bidder. Respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 argued that the petitioner failed to meet essential conditions, and the court should not interfere in the tender process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's disqualification from the tender process for supplying meals was justified based on non-compliance with eligibility criteria, specifically concerning VAT/GST registration and clearances, as per the tender conditions? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the authorities erred in appreciating the tender conditions and documents. They argued that any breach was minor or technical and not fatal to their bid. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. to argue that minor variations should not lead to disqualification, especially when financially beneficial. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents (Gujarat State Tribal Education Society and respondent no.4) argued that the petitioner failed to satisfy essential requirements, as indicated in the impugned communication. They contended that the breaches were not technical but fundamental, and the court should not direct the authorities to ignore them. They cited B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, and Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited v. Devkishan Computed Private Limited to emphasize the need for strict compliance with essential conditions and the limitations of judicial review in tender matters.