Senkiskhan vs. The Special Officer Cum
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Senkiskhan, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his tender for Shop No. 7 in the Ramanathapuram Marketing Committee Commercial Complex. The second respondent, Ramanathapuram Marketing Committee, had invited tender applications for shops. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 61,000/- was the highest, but it was rejected, and the shop was allotted to the third respondent. The tender conditions required applicants to submit proof of business for at least one year in the preceding three years and proof of GST payment, including nil dues as of March 2022. The petitioner asserted he had enclosed his GST registration certificate and twelve monthly GSTR-3B returns from April 2021 to March 2022. The rejection order stated the petitioner had not filed proof of nil GST dues as of March 2022.
Held
The Court held that the primary issue was whether the petitioner had enclosed proof indicating nil GST dues. The rejection order stated that the petitioner had not filed such proof as of March 2022. However, the petitioner asserted in his affidavit that he had enclosed the GST registration certificate and twelve monthly GSTR-3B returns from April 2021 to March 2022. While the respondents did not file a formal counter-affidavit, the Court found that the petitioner had enclosed the relevant documents in the typed set. The Court noted that the tender opening process was not videographed, and the petitioner's signature was not obtained at the time of scrutiny to confirm the absence of documents. Furthermore, the rejection order was not communicated to the petitioner; only the selection list was affixed. Applying the principle under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court presumed in favour of the petitioner that he had enclosed the necessary documents. Consequently, the selection of the third respondent was set aside, and the second respondent was directed to allot Shop No. 7 to the petitioner, who was the highest bidder.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner had complied with the tender condition requiring proof of nil GST dues as of March 2022, as stipulated in the tender notification issued by the Ramanathapuram Marketing Committee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he had enclosed his GST registration certificate and twelve monthly GSTR-3B returns from April 2021 to March 2022 with his tender application, thus fulfilling the requirement. He contended that the rejection order was erroneous and that the authorities failed to follow proper procedure during the scrutiny of his application. Respondents' contentions: The second respondent (Ramanathapuram Marketing Committee) submitted that the petitioner had not annexed proof of nil GST dues as of March 2022, which was a mandatory condition. The third respondent (successful allottee) endorsed this stand, emphasizing that the conditions were incorporated to ensure genuine and bonafide tenderers with prior business experience and GST compliance, and that the petitioner, having participated with open eyes, could not question the conditions.
Sections Cited
Section 114
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.The second respondent herein issued notification dated 18.09.2022 inviting tender applications from eligible persons interested in taking shops in the petition mentioned commercial complex on rent. The petitioner was interested to take Shop No.7 in the ground floor. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's bid amount of Rs.61,000/- was the highest. However, the petitioner's bid was rejected and shop was allotted to the third respondent. Challenging the rejection, this writ petition has been filed. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is beyond dispute that the tender schedule contains the following conditions:- “xg;ge;jg;g[s;sp rkh;gpf;Fk; egh; my;yJ epWtdk; fle;j 3 Mz;Lfspy; xU tUlj;jpw;F Fiwahky; tpw;gid elj;jpa mDgtj;jpd; Mjhuk; ,izf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;. Xjf;fPL bra;ag;gLk; fil thlifj; bjhif;fF ruf;F kw;Wk; nrit (GST) thpapida[k; brYj;j ntz;Lk;. filf;F tpz;zg;gpf;Fk; egh; my;yJ epWtdk; jhq;fs; elj;Jk; tzpfj;jpw;F muR tpjpfspd;go bgwg;gl;l tzpf chpkk; kw;Wk; GST khh;r; - 2022 Mk; khjk; Koa epYitapd;wp jhf;fy; bra;j tpguj;jpd; efy;fs; ,izf;fg;gl;l ntz;Lk;.” 4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to set aside the rejection order and direct the authorities to allot the petition mentioned shop in his favour. 5.The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that the applicant must enclose the GST registration details and also proof that he 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has been paying GST for not less than one year during the last preceding three years and proof must also be annexed. The stand of the second respondent is that such proof was not annexed. 6.The learned counsel for the successful allottee endorsed the stand of the second respondent and contended that there is a good reason behind incorporation of such conditions. The conditions contemplate that the applicant must have carried on business for not less than one year during the preceding three years and must have also registered himself/herself under GST. Proof that there are nil dues must also be enclosed. Unless such conditions are incorporated, persons who do not have prior experience would take the shops. If they commit default, it will be very difficult for the second respondent to recover the arrears or secure their eviction. Only to ensure that genuine and bonafide tenderers and business men are taken as licensees, such conditions have been incorporated. The learned counsel for the third respondent would emphasise that having participated in the tender process with open eyes, it is not open to the writ petitioner to question the validity of the said conditions. 7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The validity of the conditions is not an issue in this writ 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petition. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the petitioner had enclosed proof indicating nil dues. I carefully went through the rejection order. It reads that the petitioner has enclosed the GST details along with tender application. However, in the remarks column, it is mentioned that since the petitioner had not filed proof indicating nil GST dues as in March 2022, his tender application stood rejected. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had categorically asserted and averred that he had enclosed copies of GST registration certificate and twelve monthly returns of Form GSTR-3B from April 2021 to March 2022 along with his tender schedule. Though the respondents have not filed any formal counter affidavit controverting the said averment, I do not attach much importance to non-filing of counter affidavit. Even if the second respondent filed counter affidavit that will have to be in tune only with the reasons set out in the impugned rejection order. What tilts the case in favour of the writ petitioner is that in the typed set of papers, he had enclosed the relevant documents. The petitioner is a business man. He is a pharmacist. He wants to run a medical shop in the petition mentioned shop. He had taken the tender schedule after putting his signature. He is obviously aware that he has to enclose the GST returns. I can very well apply the principle set out in Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When the petitioner asserted that he had enclosed the relevant 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis documents, the only way, his assertion could have been shown to be false is by getting his signature at the time of scrutiny. The tender applications opened on 30.09.2022 at about 11.00 am. The tender opening process could have very well been videographed to avoid unnecessary allegations and controversies. That was not done. Even at the time of scrutiny, if on the ground mentioned in the rejection order the petitioner's application had to be rejected, his signature could very well have been obtained. The petitioner should have been informed at the time of scrutiny that since the relevant document has not been enclosed, his application stood rejected. The petitioner should have been put on notice then and there. If the petitioner refused to put his signature, the reason for rejection could have been communicated immediately thereafter. Such conduct on the part of the official respondents would have definitely infused confidence in the mind of this Court. I am informed that the rejection order was not at all communicated to the petitioner. Only the selection list was affixed and it was that which has been challenged in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even the selection list was affixed only on 06.10.2022. The rejection order has been enclosed only in the typed set of papers filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. In these circumstances, the presumption as set out in Section 114 of the Evidence Act will have to be applied in favour of the writ petitioner. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In this view of the matter, the selection of the third respondent in respect of Shop No.7 in the ground floor is set aside. Admittedly, the third respondent had quoted only a sum of Rs.60,000/-. Since the petitioner is the highest bidder having made a bid for Rs.61,000/-, the second respondent is directed to allot the petition mentioned shop in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: 1.The Special Officer Cum Deputy Director of Agricultural, Agricultural Department, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Secretary, Ramanathapuram Marketing Committee, Latham's Bungalow Road, Opposite to Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias
2022 (1/3) 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.