Quality Caterer And Ors. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Quality Caterer & Ors., filed a writ application seeking a direction for the respondent authorities to issue an experience certificate for approximately ten months of work executed. The petitioners participated in a tender in 2024, were awarded a two-year work contract, but the contract was terminated mid-tenure. The petitioners argued that the experience certificate is crucial for future bids, referencing a clause in the tender document requiring successful execution of similar services over the past three financial years. They also cited a co-ordinate bench order in a similar case where payment for successfully completed work was directed. The respondent authorities contended that the work order was terminated because the petitioners used two GST numbers – one for proprietorship and another for a partnership firm – and therefore, the work was not successfully completed.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to an experience certificate. The reasoning was based on the fact that the work order awarded to the petitioners was terminated by the respondent authorities because the petitioners were found to have used two GST numbers, one for their proprietorship and another for their partnership firm. The Court found that as the petitioners had not successfully completed the work awarded to them, they were not eligible to receive the experience certificate as claimed. Therefore, the writ application was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an experience certificate for the period they executed work, despite the termination of their contract, under the relevant tender conditions? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and the concept of 'successful execution'). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they had executed work for ten months and were entitled to an experience certificate for this period, as it would benefit them in future bids. They relied on a clause in the tender document requiring bidders to have successfully executed similar services over the last three financial years. They also cited an unreported order from a co-ordinate bench in a similar case (Quality Caterer & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WPA 16314 of 2025) where the court directed payment for successfully completed work, implying acceptance of successful completion. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent authorities argued that the work order was terminated due to the petitioners using two GST numbers (one for proprietorship and one for a partnership firm). Consequently, they contended that the petitioners had not successfully completed the awarded work and therefore were not eligible for an experience certificate.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
S/L 23
2026
Court. No. 25
Sourav
WPA 15303 of 2026
Quality Caterer & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta Mr. Tirthankar Dey Ms. Ria Naskar … for the petitioners.
Ms. Smita Pal Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree Mr. Vivek Gupta … for the Union of India.
The petitioners have filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for providing the experience certificate to the extent that the petitioners have executed the work with the respondent authorities for about ten months.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of the tender notice of the year 2024, the petitioners have participated in the said tender and the authorities have awarded the work to the petitioner. The tenure of the work was two years but in the mid of the tender work, the authorities have terminated the tender. He submits that the petitioners have executed work for ten months with respect of the tender work and the petitioner has applied for grant of experience certificate but the respondent authorities are not providing the experience certificate for the period when the petitioners have executed the work in terms of the work order issued by the respondent authorities.
The petitioner has referred the clause of the tender document wherein it is mentioned that the bidder must
2 have successfully executed/completed similar services over the last three years that the current financial year and the last three financial years.
By referring the said Clause, the petitioners submits that if the respondent authorities will provide the certificate for the period for which the petitioners have executed work, the said certificate will be benefited to the petitioner to participate in the future bids. He has relied upon an unreported order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Quality Caterer & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WPA 16314 of 2025 dated August 29, 2025 and submits that in the said order the Hon’ble Court has directed the authorities for payment of the work which has been successfully completed by the petitioner.
By referring the said judgment, the petitioner submits that this Court has accepted that the petitioner has successfully completed the said work and as such, the respondent authorities are liable to provide the experience certificate to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities submits that though the work order was issued in favour of the petitioners but subsequently, it was found that the petitioners have used two GST number, one is of the proprietorship and another is of the partnership firm and, accordingly, the authorities have terminated the work order issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has not successfully completed the work awarded to the petitioner and, as such, it is not
3 possible for the authorities for providing the experience certificate as prayed for by the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the materials on record.
This Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not providing the experience certificate to the petitioner as the petitioners have worked for ten months with the respondent authorities. This Court finds that the work was awarded to the petitioners for two years but in the meantime, the respondent authorities have found that the petitioner has used the two GST numbers and, accordingly, the respondent authorities have terminated the contract awarded to the petitioners.
As the petitioners have not successfully completed the work awarded to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get any experience certificate from the respondent authorities as claimed by the petitioners.
In view of the above, WPA 15303 of 2026 is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as costs.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.