M/S Omega Security Solutions vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court decided to vacate the interim order dated September 18, 2023. The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that it had quoted GST rates in its tender, which was a point of disqualification for the writ petitioner (opposite party no. 5). The Court observed that the applicant's Item Rate BoQ contained several rows with figures for GST components. The Court also noted that out of six bidders, five had quoted GST amounts. Regarding the alleged discrepancy in financial figures, the Court found it not to be material, as the BoQ figure and the Tender Committee Report figure represented different purposes. Therefore, based on the applicant's successful demonstration of quoting GST, the Court deemed it appropriate to vacate the interim order. The interlocutory application was allowed, and the interim order was vacated.

Facts

This case involves an interlocutory application filed by M/s Omega Security Solutions (the applicant) to vacate an ex parte interim order dated September 18, 2023, passed in a connected writ petition. The applicant was a tenderer for housekeeping services at the Central Institute of Technology (CIT), Kokrajhar, through a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated June 26, 2023. The writ petitioner, M/s Bodoland Security Services (opposite party no. 5), was disqualified during the financial bid evaluation for not quoting GST on service charges. The applicant argues that the writ petitioner's disqualification was justified as the applicant itself had quoted GST in its bid. The writ petitioner, however, questioned the rates quoted by the applicant in the Bill of Quantities (BoQ) and its final acceptance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte interim order dated September 18, 2023, passed in WP(C)/5427/2023 should be vacated, considering the applicant's contention that it had quoted GST in its tender, unlike the writ petitioner (opposite party no. 5)? (Question of fact and law) Contentions: Petitioner (M/s Omega Security Solutions): Argued that the writ petitioner was disqualified for not quoting GST on service charges, while the applicant had indeed quoted GST in its bid, as evidenced by multiple rows in its Item Rate BoQ containing GST components. The applicant also contended that any discrepancy in financial figures between its BoQ and the Tender Committee Report was not material as they represented different purposes. Revenue/State (Union of India and others): Prayed for time to obtain instructions regarding the difference in rates quoted by the applicant in the BoQ and the Tender Committee Report.