Rameshwaram Ramesh vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rameshwaram Ramesh, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Endowment Department (Respondents 2 and 3) in not awarding a tender for supplying tent house materials on rent to Sri Yellamma Pochamma Devasthanam, Balkampet, Hyderabad. The petitioner claimed to be the highest bidder, having quoted Rs. 15,57,000/-, while Respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 15,01,000/-. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 lacked the requisite experience and GST certificate. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner's tender was rejected during the technical bid stage because the petitioner did not possess a GST certificate at the time of bid submission, as required by the tender conditions. The petitioner's GST certificate was issued on November 26, 2024, after the writ petition was filed on November 7, 2024, and after the last date for bid receipt (November 4, 2024).
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's tender was rightly rejected by Respondent No. 3 due to the shortfall of requisite documents, specifically the absence of a GST registration certificate at the time of bid submission. The Court noted that the petitioner's GST certificate was issued on November 26, 2024, which was after the filing of the writ petition on November 7, 2024, and after the last date for receipt of bids on November 4, 2024. The Court found that the petitioner had not fulfilled the condition prescribed at Serial No. 22(3)(d) in the tender and, having accepted the tender conditions by participating, could not question the authority's decision. Citing Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Court stated that it could not interfere with the government's freedom of contract and tender process when there was no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in rejecting the petitioner's tender for the supply of tent house materials on rent, despite the petitioner being the highest bidder, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, particularly concerning the GST registration requirement? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the condition requiring a GST registration certificate was not explicitly mentioned in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) uploaded online. The petitioner also claimed that the technical bids were not opened in front of the bidders, and the rejection of their bid was not uploaded on the e-procurement platform. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents (State of Telangana and Commissioner, Endowment Department) contended that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria, specifically the requirement of possessing a GST registration certificate as on the date of uploading the document, as stipulated in Serial No. 22(3)(d) of the tender conditions. They asserted that Respondent No. 4 possessed the necessary GST certificate and qualified in the technical bid, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's bid. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India regarding the scope of judicial review in government contracts.
Sections Cited
Section 22(3)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.32864 of 2024 ORDER: _This writ petition is fited piaying to: "to declore the octions of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not owording the Tender vide NIT Lr No.4lSYPDl2024, doted 18:10.2024 for carrying out the works mentioned in the Notice inviting Tender Online Version in respect of Sri Yellamma Pochommo Devosthanam, Bolkompet Hyderabod inspite of being the Highest Bidder ond awording the Tender to the Respondent No.4 os lllegol Arbitrory Unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 ond 3 to oward the Tender to the petitioner in respect of Sri Yellammo Pochammo Devosthanam Bolkampet Hyderabod being the Highest Biidder in the soid Tender in the lnterest of Justice".
Brief facts rising to fite this wit petition are the petitioner claims to have an experience in Tent House Business and managing the function by giving utensits and other articles for functions. lt is further submitted that respondent No.3 issued tender notification through Government Web Porta[ for the suppty of Articles/Materiats on rent basis as per rate fixed by the respondent No.3 in the newty purchased VIP comptex Premises for visiting pitgrims/ Devotees and the petitioner submitted a[[ the documents as per 5t.No.22(a)(b) to (m) through ontine process and atso submitted hard copies to the respondent No.3, as per tender notification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner woutd further submit that petitioner has quoted Rs.15,57,000/- in the said tender and the respondent .a 2 No.4 has quoted of Rs.'15,01 ,000/-, however the respondent No.4.did not have requisite experience and GST certificate as per notification and the respondent No.4 has not fited retevant documents as per the notification, but the respondent No.3 has at[otted the said Tender to respondent No.
Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is fited.
Learned Assistant Government Pteader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 woutd submit that respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit, wherein retevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, reads as under: "lt is submitted thot the averments mode in the poro that the petitioner hos submitted GST registration certificote and other licenses are utterly false. The petitioner has submitted o se[f decekrotion certificote thot he is hoving o very much experience in supplying tent house material. Except thot he hos not obtained ony experience either from other Endowments temples or ony other Government institutions. Further with regard to GST he hos not submitted ony.certificote from the Government of lndio to that effect thot his tent house firm wos registered under GST. Thus in view of these lopses the petitioner's tender for reject ot the time of opening of technical bid. Leorned Assistont Government Pleoder for Endowments submits thot respondent No.4 hos obtoined GST Certiicote from the Government of lndia under the trode name of "Dhormosostha Enterpises" ond under this Trade name any legol business con be done, thus respondent No.4 quolified in technical bid and tender of the petitioner was rejected in technico[ bid as there the petitioner is not hoving GST Certificote ot the time of opening of tender and hence petitioner's tender wos rejected ond the second stoge of financiol bid quoted by the petitioner is not opened os the petitioner is disquolified in the initial stage of technical bid. "
3
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petit.ioner has fited repty to counter-affidavit wherein para Nos.4 and 5 reads as under; "ln Reply to Poro No.4 of the Counter Affidavit, it is submitted that . in the soid Poro it is overred by the Respondent No.3 that satisfoctory ' .6upply Experience Certificate has to be submitted towards the evidence thot the tenders hos supplied Tent House materiols to Temples / Government tnstitutions. /t is submitted thot such a condition is not to be seen in the Notice tnviting Tender uploaded on the lnternet. 5. ln Reply to Paro No.7 of the Counter Affidavit, it is submitted that the technical bids were not opened in front of the respective tenders nor the rejection of the technicol bid of the petitioner was uplooded in the lnternet more porticulorly on the E-procurement ptotform,,.
Heard both sides.
The retevant dates for tender notification, dated 1g.10.2024 for suppty of Tender house material on rent basis, reads as under: St.No. Description Dates
Bid Document Downlooded start Dote 19.10.2024 12. 8id Document Downloaded End Dote 04.11 .2024
Lost Dote & Time for Receipt o Bids 04.1 1 .2024
Bid Validity Period One month for Finalizotion
Technical Bid Opening Date ond Time (Qualification and Eti ibiti Sto 04.1 1 .2024
Price Bid opening Date ond Time (Financiol Bid Sto e 04.11.2024 l
4 8. lt is pertinent to note that the last date for receipt of bids was on 04.11.20?4 and present writ petition is fited on 71 .11.2074, wherein at Para No.10 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that "petitioner hos olso obtained GST Registrations ond other Licenses in his nome os is mondote under{he Tender conditions. " however, on perusal of GST Certificate of the petitioner, it is noted that the said GST certificate was issued on 26.11.2074, i.e., after fiting of the present writ petition. lt is atso pertinent to note that as per etigibitity criterion, the decision of the Tender opening authority/The Executive Officer is final and binding on the participants without any recourse. That apart as per the 'Procedure for Bid Submission' at SerraI No.22 (3) (d), the petitioner has to submit GST Registration certificate on the e-procurement ptatform as on the date of uptoading the document, hence the ctaim of the petitioner that he has futfitted att the requirements at the time of opening of tender is incorrect, therefore the respondent No.3 had rightty rejected the petitioner's tender on the ground of shortfalI of requisite documents.
The Hon'bte Supreme Court in Tata Cellulor v. lJniori of lndiot ias deatt the scope of judiciat review in Government contracts/ tenders and held that Courts cannot interfere with the Government freedom of contract, invitation of tenders and refusal of any tenders which pertain to poticy matters. ln the present case on hand, the petitioner has not futfitted the cbndition prescribed at Serial No.22(3)(d) in the tender and that the 1 gesq 6 scc 6s1
5 petitioner having accepted the said tender condition had participated in the tender and now cannot question the decision of the authority. ln my considered view that there is no ittegatity, irrationatity and procedural impropriety to the decision made by the tender authorities in rejecting the petitidner tender. 10. ln view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no reasons for this Court to interfere under Articte 226 of Constitution of lndia to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not awarding the Tender, vide Lr.No.4/SYPDl2024, dated 18.10.2024 to the petitioner as ittegat, hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
Accordingty, writ petition is dismissed. Misceltaneous apptications, if any pending, shatl stand closed. No order as to costs. //// N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTBAR SECNOJS;ICER / To,1. One CC to Srilvlohd Yousufuddin, Advocate tOt"L,.," of Telangana, at i. il; cciio cC for. Endowments, High Court for the , 8#"Lt?SLt9,rl-. Manohar Rao, s.c. ror EndowmenttoPucl
Two CD CoPies Vtr TJ MP
HIGH COURT DATED:1311212024 ORDER WP.No.32864 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *d'/* -r r.,t F o t4 o oo 1 1 ilAn 2025 s( *j=_-:-:_ I X*
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.