Sri Abdul Karim Mujawar vs. The Superintendent Of Post Office

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Issue necessary order or direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quashing the terminated the order memo. no. BGV/ G2/ TMMS/ dlgs/2025 dated 24-06-2025 the TENDER / BID/ contract number GEM/2025/B.5457440 dated 17-10-2024 which was sanctioned vide sanction number 511687782270699 dated. 15-01-2025 produced at Annexure-L passed by the R1 as illegal, null and void to meet the ends of justice. b. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, during the pendency of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity and etc.,”

Heard Smt.Afshan Abdul Aziz Shabashkhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of distributing post parcels. A notification was issued by the 1st respondent on 17.10.2024 regarding goods and transport services. Finding himself eligible under the said notification, the petitioner applied, emerged as the successful bidder, and was awarded the contract. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14985

Long after the petitioner began executing the contract i.e., for about nine months, the respondents realized that at the time of participating in the tender and submission of documents, the petitioner did not have a valid GST. The GST previously held by the petitioner had been voluntarily withdrawn due to turnover considerations. Consequently, an order was issued terminating the contract. The petitioner approached this Court challenging the termination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the contract could not have been validly terminated because the GST, as of the date of issuance of the work order, had been revived, and the revival was brought to the notice of the respondent-department.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the documents appended to the petition to substantiate this submission.

Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2- contends that at the time of scrutiny HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14985 of the documents and participation in the tender, the petitioner admittedly did not possess a valid GST. Therefore, in their view, the termination of the contract was justified.

Learned counsel further submitted that there is an arbitration clause for dispute resolution between the tenderer and the tender-inviting authority, and that this Court should not interfere. He also relied upon the termination clause in the contract, which allows termination if the tenderer misled the tender-inviting authority.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

The facts as narrated above are not in dispute. The tender was invited for the following purposes: “Goods Transport Service-Per KM Based Service – Postal mails and parcels; Pickup truck; light Duty” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14985

The petitioner participated in the tender, and his GST was admittedly not available at the time of submission. During tender scrutiny, it was indicated to the petitioner that GST would be required for orders beyond Rs.40 lakhs. The petitioner therefore had the GST deactivated on 23.01.2025, and the revival was brought to the notice of the respondents. Thereafter, the work order was issued in favor of the petitioner on 31.01.2025 which reads as follows: “SUB: Hiring of TMMS vehicle for conveyance of mail bags from Belagavi Sorting to Town POs, TMO and vice versa under Belagavi through GeM portal.

Thus, the tender-inviting authority was fully aware that the GST had been revived before issuing the work order. Notwithstanding this, after approximately nine months of contract execution, the impugned termination order was issued which reads as follows: “As per the directions of the competent authority, Tender/Bid/Contract number GEM/2025/B/5457440 dated 17.10.2024, which was sanctioned vide sanction number 511687782270699 dated 15.01.2025 in connection with TMMS service for transportation of mails between Belagavi Sorting office To Belagavi Town Post offices and vice cersa will be terminated w.e.f 10.07.2025 for to the reason cited as below:”

The impugned order retroactively relied on the fact that the GST uploaded at the time of bid submission was cancelled or deactivated. However, as noted above, the GST had been reactivated and brought to the notice of the respondents before awarding the contract. Once the contract was awarded after scrutinizing all documents, it was not open to the respondents to retroactively terminate the contract. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14985

Respondents’ submission that the petitioner misled the tender-inviting authority would have merit only if the contract had been awarded without acknowledging the GST revival. Since the contract was awarded with full knowledge of the reinstated GST, it is now too late for the respondents to argue that the petitioner lacked GST at the time of bid submission.

The respondents' further contention that the petitioner should be relegated to arbitration is also untenable. The respondent is the State, a contracting party under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and its conduct in terminating the contract under these circumstances would be arbitrary. The petitioner cannot be compelled to resort to arbitration for a dispute arising from arbitrary termination within nine months of execution, especially where GST was valid at the time of work order issuance.

In light of the above, the petition deserves to succeed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14985 ORDER: i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The Termination Order/MEMO. NO. BGV/ G2/ TMMS/ DLGS/2025 DATED 24-06-2025 the tender/ bid/contract Number GEM/2025/B.5457440 dated 17-10-2024 which was sanctioned vide sanction number 511687782270699 dated 15-01-2025 stands quashed. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE