M/S Impex INDIA And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Impex India and its proprietor Deepesh Jain, challenged an e-mail dated April 19, 2018, and an order of the same date issued by the Deputy Inspector General, SSB, Tezpur. This order rejected the petitioners' technical bid for a tender to purchase free ration for the 30th BN Dirang, Arunachal Pradesh, citing non-compliance with technical specifications. The tender, issued on March 14, 2018, required various documents including a valid license/registration, performance certificate, monetary limit mention, GST clearance certificate, and financial stability certificate. The petitioners failed to upload a license valid until April 30, 2019, a GST clearance certificate, and a proper financial stability certificate. Their submitted license was valid only until March 31, 2018. The petitioners did not participate in the clarification phase or the pre-bid meeting.
Held
The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's tender was justified. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to comply with the essential tender conditions. Specifically, the uploaded license was valid only until March 31, 2018, falling short of the tender requirement for validity up to April 30, 2019. While the petitioner cited a practice of annual license issuance by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, the Court noted that the petitioner had an opportunity to raise this during the pre-bid meeting, which they did not avail. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to upload the GST Clearance Certificate, submitting only the GST Registration Certificate. The Financial Stability Certificate provided by the bank was also deemed insufficient as it did not reflect the petitioner's financial credentials but rather the bank's potential to offer credit. The Court found these deficiencies substantial enough to warrant no interference with the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with mandatory tender conditions, especially after opportunities to clarify or rectify have been missed, leads to the rejection of a bid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's tender was justified on the grounds of non-compliance with the technical specifications stipulated in the tender notice, specifically concerning the validity of the uploaded license and the absence of a GST Clearance Certificate and a proper Financial Stability Certificate. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary. Regarding the license, it was contended that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation typically issues licenses for only one year, making it impossible to upload a license valid until April 30, 2019. The petitioner also claimed to have uploaded a license, though its validity expired on March 31, 2018. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the GST Clearance Certificate or Financial Stability Certificate, but the overall submission implies these were either not mandatory or sufficiently addressed. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and SSB authorities, contended that the tender was rightly rejected due to several deficiencies. These included the failure to upload a license valid as per the tender stipulation, the absence of a GST Clearance Certificate (only a registration certificate was uploaded), and the submission of a financial stability certificate from the bank that did not provide the petitioner's financial credentials but merely indicated the bank's willingness to provide credit facilities.
Sections Cited
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 23-05-2018 Heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for all the respondents.
Page No.# 2/3 Mr. Gobinda Kumar Nath, Circle Organizer, SSB, Tezpur, who has assisted Mr. Keyal, is also heard. By filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the e-mail dated 19.04.2018 informing the petitioners that the petitioners’ tender, submitted in response to the e-tender for purchase of free ration in respect of 30th BN Dirang, Arunachal Pradesh, was rejected with the reason “Not complied with technical specification”. Mr. Keyal has produced the order dated 19.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, FTR HQRS, SSB, Tezpur. A perusal of the same goes to show that it was recorded therein that the tender of the petitioners was not to be considered for further technical evaluation, thus, in essence, rejecting the technical bid of the petitioners. The shortcomings, as indicated therein, are as follows:
“1. License/Registration has not been uploaded.
Performance Certificate has not been uploaded.
Monetary limit is not mentioned in the Certificate.
Financial Stability Certificate has not been uploaded.” The tender was issued on 14.03.2018, fixing 17.03.2018 and 20.03.2018 as clarification start date and clarification end date, respectively. Pre-bid meeting was fixed on 21.03.2018 at 10:00 hours. The last date of submission of the tender was 04.04.2018 at 10:00 hours. The tender required submission of, amongst others, scanned copy of licence/registration number of the Supplier/Firm (valid up to 30.04.2019); scanned copy of Performance Certificate of units/CO, if any; scanned copy of latest GST Clearance Certificate and Financial Stability Certificate. The petitioner did not take part in clarification phase or at the Pre-bid meeting. The language is not very happily worded in the order dated 19.04.2018, when it is reflected that the petitioner did not upload License/Registration Certificate. The licence annexed to the writ petition, which, according to the petitioner, was uploaded along with his tender, demonstrates that the licence was valid up to 31.03.2018. In that sense, the petitioner did not upload License which is Page No.# 3/3 valid up to 30.04.2019, which is the laid down stipulation in the tender. Perusal of Clause-12(vii) of the tender notice, however, shows that it is not obligatory to upload Performance Certificate. The petitioner did not upload GST Clearance Certificate and had only uploaded the GST Registration Certificate. The Financial Stability Certificate, which the petitioner uploaded, shows that the Certificate was issued by the Bank without any risk, responsibility and liability and financial credentials of the petitioner is conspicuously absent. All that the Bank Certificate goes to show is that the Bank would be in a position to provide credit facilities to meet working capital requirements for executing the contract subject to fulfillment of Bank’s terms and conditions and other rules laid down for such type of credit facility as per the Bank’ credit facility. In the above view of the matter, the tender of the petitioner was held to be not compliant of the tender conditions. Apart from anything else, the licence of the petitioner itself expired on 31.03.2018. Mr. Alam has submitted that there is a practice of Guwahati Municipal Corporation to issue licence for 1(one) year only at a time and, therefore, the petitioner could not upload the licence with validity till 30.04.2019. The petitioner could have brought to the notice of the authorities the above aspect of the matter in the Pre-bid meeting, which opportunity the petitioner did not avail of. Having regard to the deficiencies in the tender document of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 and accordingly, the same is dismissed. J U D G E M. Sharma Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.