Shree Krishna Contractor And Suppliers vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Krishna Contractor and Suppliers, a partnership firm, applied online for an e-tender advertised on March 24, 2018, by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, for the disposal of limestone. The tender bid of the petitioner was rejected by the committee because the firm did not upload/submit its registration document. The petitioner is a partnership firm but is not duly registered. The GST number was provided as the registration number in the tender form. The petitioner claims to have submitted a PAN card and GST registration certificate, but acknowledges the firm is unregistered. The impugned order rejecting the tender is under challenge.

Held

The Court held that there was no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the order rejecting the petitioner's e-tender. The reasoning was that the tender conditions clearly stipulated that firms or companies were required to upload a copy of their registration certificate. The petitioner, a partnership firm, admitted to being unregistered, and therefore, failed to meet this essential requirement of the tender. The submission of a PAN card and GST registration certificate, while important, did not substitute for the required firm registration certificate. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the tendering authority. The ratio decidendi is that failure to comply with mandatory tender conditions, such as providing a required registration certificate, justifies the rejection of a bid, even if other documents like GST registration are submitted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's e-tender bid for failing to upload/submit a firm registration certificate, as required by the tender conditions, is legally sustainable, particularly when the petitioner is an unregistered partnership firm? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and the definition of a registered firm). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they submitted a PAN card and GST registration certificate, and that the GST number was provided as the registration number. They implicitly contend that these documents should have sufficed or that the rejection was overly strict. Respondent's contention: The State-respondents, through the Standing Counsel, argued that the tender conditions explicitly required firms or companies to upload a copy of their registration certificate, and the petitioner, being an unregistered partnership firm, failed to comply with this mandatory requirement. They did not rely on any specific provision or precedent.