M/S Kusum Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kusum Enterprise, participated in a tender process floated by the Patashpur-II Panchayat Samity. The petitioner raised an objection on July 17, 2025, alleging that the L1 bidder lacked the requisite eligibility criteria, specifically failing to submit a three-month GST return as required by the tender notice. The petitioner claims their objection has not been considered. The financial bid was opened in July 2025, and a work order is yet to be issued. The High Court was informed of these developments.

Held

The Court, without entering into the merits of the petitioner's allegations, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Block Development Officer, Patashpur-II Block (respondent no. 6), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objection dated July 17, 2025, strictly in accordance with the Notice Inviting Tender. The respondent is mandated to verify the documents of the successful bidder and take necessary remedial measures if the petitioner's allegations appear to be proper. A reasoned order must be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner's advocate is to forward a copy of the objection to the respondent. The ratio decidendi is that objections regarding tender eligibility, particularly those concerning statutory filings like GST returns, must be duly considered by the tendering authority in accordance with the tender terms, and appropriate action taken if the allegations are substantiated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the eligibility of the L1 bidder, specifically concerning the submission of a three-month GST return, should be considered by the tendering authority, and if so, what remedial measures should be taken if the allegation is found to be proper? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of the Notice Inviting Tender and potentially GST provisions related to returns). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the L1 bidder did not possess the required eligibility criteria as they had not filed a three-month GST return, and their objection dated July 17, 2025, has not been considered by the authorities. They seek a proper consideration of their objection and appropriate remedial action. Revenue/State: No specific arguments recorded in the judgment for the respondents.