Tirupati Agro Seed Distributors PVT. LTD. And Anr vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

2026 Court No.25 D/L No.15 S. Gayen IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s firm is having GST Registration Certificate Chaattisgarh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2119 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity,

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has participated in the said tender issued by the Jalpaiguri Zila Parishad wherein, the same condition was imposed and the petitioner without any objection had participated in the said tender and has got the award in his favour. He submits that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of one tender by participating the tender process without challenging the terms and conditions and in other tender, the petitioner has challenged the tender condition which is not suited to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State further submits that the respondents have incorporated the said condition as the materials are required to be supplied for the purpose of Pre-School Education of Anganwadi Centres and if after the supply of the material it is found that the materials are damaged and required to be replaced and if the bidder is not having its establishment in the local area, it would be very difficult to exchange the damaged goods and it will take further time to exchange the same, for which the kids of the

The learned counsel for the State further submits that in the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. The petitioner is having the GST Registration of Berhampore Village, District Murshidabad which is within the State of West Bengal. District Berhampore, Murshidabad is just adjacent to the district of Malda. The tender notice published by the Jalpaigur put the condition that the bidder/OEM must have a functional service centre in the juri iction of Jalpaiguri District, West Bengal. Bidder has to submit documentary

As per Clause 12 of the present tender availability of office in the State as well as District of consignee or Dakshin Dinajpur or Uttar Dinajpur during last 3 years as per GST Registration. Documentary evidence required for this Bid.

This Court failed to appreciate that the GST Registration cannot be issued in two separate districts. Once the bidder/OEM is getting the GST registration, it is valid for all over India. There cannot be two registration numbers of one firm. As regard the place of business, the authorities cannot restrict the persons to having the place of business where the tender has been issued. The authorities have to consider whether the tenderer is competent to supply the materials which are the subject matter of the tender. If the authorities find that after issuance of work order, the firm fails to supply materials, the authorities can free to take appropriate action against the firm.

In Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that as follows:-

This Court in BHARAT FORGE supra has enunciated the doctrine level playing field and has stated that the same finds expression in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The doctrine of level playing field requires that all equally placed competitors must be given an equal opportunity to participate in trade and commerce. It is designed to prevent the State from skewing the market in favour of few by erecting artificial barriers. In the instant case, the impugned tender condition has the effect of excluding bidders who though otherwise financially sound and technically competent, have no experience of supply of sports goods to the State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in past three years. The State by linking the eligibility criteria with past local supplies has created an artificial

The object of public procurement is to secure quality goods and services for the benefit of public exchequer. The said object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in contracts of similar nature, regardless of place of performance of the contract. To confine the eligibility to participate in the tender, within one State is not only irrational but is also disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective delivery of Sports Kits.”

In the present case, this Court finds that the several authorities have issued the tender notice and the petitioner has participated in the said tender with regard to the same work and the authorities have accepted the tender of the petitioner and issued the work order. In the present case the petitioner could not participate because of the condition imposed by the authorities. This Court finds that the authorities have violated the provision of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the authorities cannot restrict the tenderer should have the business in the same place of the tender.

The judgment relied by the State in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), it is settle law

This Court finds that the condition imposed by the authorities is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Clause 12 of the tender notice dated 21st January, 2026 is set aside and quashed. The authorities are directed to issue corrigendum by deleting Clause 12 of the tender document and to extend the time for submission of the tender documents as well as the date of opening of the tender documents.

WPA 3710 of 2026 is disposed of.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all formalities.