M/S Raj Informatics Construction vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Raj Informatics Construction, participated in a bid for supplying manpower to the Ara Municipal Corporation. The petitioner claims to have passed technical evaluation and emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) in the financial bid. However, no work order was issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, their enlistment was cancelled because they did not provide a GST Code for manpower supply. Respondents No. 11 and 12 were enrolled as agencies and awarded work orders. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was unjustified after technical evaluation, and that Respondents No. 11 and 12 were wrongly adjudged L1 and L2 as their quoted rates did not include payment to sanitary workers.
Held
The Court held that there was no fault with the enlistment of Respondents No. 11 and 12. Regarding the petitioner's primary contention, the Court noted that while the GST Code deficiency was not identified during the initial technical evaluation, it was communicated to the petitioner once discovered. The respondents argued that the petitioner's agent was aware of this deficiency. The Court also found that Respondents No. 11 and 12 were paying sanitary workers above the stipulated minimum wage, and that the bid document allowed for other bidders to match the L1 rates. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Municipal Corporation's decision to award the contract to Respondents No. 11 and 12. The Court also noted that the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) had been returned and that the petitioner was free to reapply for enlistment. No specific GST Act sections were explicitly discussed or applied in the reasoning.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's enlistment for failing to provide a GST Code for manpower supply was justified, despite passing the technical evaluation, and whether this issue turns on the interpretation of tender conditions and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. 2. Whether Respondents No. 11 and 12 were correctly adjudged as L1 and L2, considering the petitioner's argument that their quoted rates did not adequately account for sanitary worker payments and that the petitioner's rate was lower and included mandated minimum wages. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that once technical evaluation was cleared, the Municipal Corporation had no grounds to object to the tender papers later. They also contended that Respondents No. 11 and 12 were wrongly identified as L1 and L2 because their summary rate charts excluded sanitary worker payments, whereas the petitioner's L1 rate was lower and incorporated government-mandated minimum wages. Respondents' arguments: The Municipal Corporation and Respondents No. 11 and 12 argued that while the GST Code deficiency was not found during technical evaluation, it was communicated to the petitioner once discovered. They asserted that the petitioner's agent was aware of this deficiency. They also stated that Respondents No. 11 and 12 were paying sanitary workers Rs. 400, which was above the minimum wage of Rs. 371, and that the bid document allowed L2-L6 bidders to match L1 rates.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 05-03-2025 2/4 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Singh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate for Arah Municipal Corporation. The Respondents No. 11 and 12/the awardees of the tender and the State are being represented by Mr. Ravish Chandra and Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocates, respectively.
The petitioner had participated in the bid and had passed the muster of the technical evaluation. He claims to have been adjudged L1 in the financial bid. However, no work was issued to him and his enlistment as an agency to supply manpower to the Municipal Corporation was later cancelled for the reason of his not having supplied the GST Code for manpower supply. The Respondents No. 11 and 12 were enrolled as the agencies and were also given the work order for supply of manpower.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that once the technical evaluation committee did not find any folly in the tender papers of the writ petitioner, there was no justification for the Municipal Corporation to have raised any objection on that count after the financial bids were opened.
Apart from this, it has been submitted that the Respondents No. 11 and 12 were wrongly adjudged as L1 and L2 for the reason that only their summary 3/4 chart of the rates quoted by them was considered, which did not include the payment to sanitary workers. The rate offered by the petitioner was the lowest and it incorporated the minimum wages mandated by the Government.
Opposed to the afore-noted contentions, the Municipal Corporation as also the Respondents No. 11 and 12 have submitted that though it was not detected at the time of technical evaluation that the petitioner did not have necessary GST Code number for supply of manpower, but no sooner was it found out, it was communicated to the petitioner. At the time of opening of the financial bid and even later, the agent of the petitioner was available, who had the knowledge of this deficiency in the tender paper of the petitioner.
Even otherwise, it is asserted, Respondents No. 11 and 12 have been directed to pay the minimum wages circulated by the Labour Department to the manpower. As per the Notification, the minimum wage of sanitary worker is Rs. 371/- but Respondents No. 11 and 12 have been paying Rs. 400/- to such workers, keeping in mind that such amount is reasonable.
It has also been pointed out that in the bid document, it has clearly been stated that once L1 rates are finalized as per the procedure outlined in the RFP, 4/4 L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6 bidders would also be given option to match the L1 rates and get empanelled with Arah Municipal Corporation (AMC). The final decision for empanelling the agencies who qualify and agree to the terms will be of the A.M.C.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any fault with the enlistment of Respondents No. 11 and 12. 9. This Court has also taken notice of the fact that the EMD of the petitioner has been returned to him and it is left open for the petitioner to apply again for getting enlisted for supply of manpower to the Municipal Corporation.
We do not find any reason for interfering with the decision of the Municipal Corporation in awarding the contract to Respondents No. 11 and 12. 11. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly.
Sujit/Krishna (Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ) (Harish Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.03.2025 Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.