Jamunarani vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.J.M.Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment Board and the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Mariamman Temple, to consider her offer for a license to collect human hair. The license was auctioned on June 17, 2025, pursuant to a tender notification dated June 3, 2025. The petitioner's grievance was that for the first time, the tender notification stipulated that the bid offer should include 18% GST. She submitted a representation on June 19, 2025, and had prepared a Demand Draft for the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). The respondents stated that the tender was opened on June 17, 2025, with two participants, and the highest bid of Rs. 3,00,60,000/- was accepted. They argued that the petitioner was attempting to obstruct the tender proceedings after the bid opening.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for dismissal was that the bid for the collection of human hair had already been opened on June 17, 2025, pursuant to the tender notification dated June 3, 2025, and the highest bid had been accepted. The petitioner's attempt to raise her concerns and seek consideration of her offer after the tender process had concluded and a bid was accepted was deemed to be an attempt to scuttle the tender proceedings. The Court found no merit in the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot seek to intervene or challenge a tender process after the bids have been opened and a successful bidder has been identified, especially when their grievance arises from a condition that was part of the tender notification. The Court did not grant any relief to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider her offer for the grant of a license for the collection of human hair, given that the tender process has concluded and a bid has been accepted. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the inclusion of 18% GST in the bid offer was a new stipulation that caused her concern, leading to her representation. She sought consideration of her offer. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents argued that the tender was opened on June 17, 2025, and the highest bid was accepted. They contended that the petitioner's attempt to intervene after the bid opening was an attempt to scuttle the tender proceedings and could not be countenanced. They further submitted that if the petitioner believed no GST was payable, her remedy was to pay the GST and then seek a refund. The respondents also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the tender but had merely submitted a representation after the bid opening.