M/S Green Gold Agro Environmental Alliance vs. The State Of Ap And 4 Ors.

The petitioner is a contractor and had participated in a tender process initiated by a NIT dated 29.06.2022. The issue was in connection with “Augmentation of water supply at Pangkeng Moli village” under Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM). It is the contention of the petitioner that his bid was unduly rejected as technically non-responsive. It is further contended that five bidders were there, out of whom only one bid was found to be technically responsive

Assailing the action of holding the bid of the petitioner as non-responsive, Mr. Jamoh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such action is wholly arbitrary and without any application of mind.

Specifically referring to the reason of such decision that the petitioner had failed to submit the monthly GST return, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner paid his GST on a quarterly basis which is an available option and therefore, the question of being not able to produce the monthly GST will not arise and for that reason, his bid could not have been rejected.

By drawing the attention of this Court to the Annexures to the writ petition which constitute the bid documents of petitioner, Mr. Jamoh, the learned counsel has submitted that the documents annexed as Annexure-7 series would show that the GST is paid by the petitioner on quarterly basis. He accordingly, submits that since, he had met the said requirements, rejection of his bid on technical ground cannot be sustained in law.

Responding to the said submission, Mr. S. Tapin, learned State counsel submits that though the GST returns were required as per the conditions on monthly basis, the same was also examined from the perspective of the petitioner which was paid on quarterly basis. By subsequently drawing the attention of this Court to the GST return of the last quarter, the learned State counsel has submitted that the date of acknowledgment of payment of the relevant quarter was 19.07.2022, which is after the date of opening of the bid which was 14.07.2022. The State counsel accordingly, submits that as on the Page No.# 4/5 date of opening of the bid, the valid documents were not submitted to the authorities as the same had come into existence only on 19.07.2022. 8. The State counsel otherwise submits that State authorities are contemplating to go for a fresh tender process in which the petitioner shall have full opportunity to participate, if he so desires. The State counsel accordingly submits that the present writ petition be dismissed.

Regarding his submission, Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that he had met the requirements of up to date GST and only the documents was available after the last date of the date of opening of the bids, in which the petitioner did not have any control. He submits that there will be a failure of substantive justice inasmuch as there is no dispute of the fact that up to date GST was indeed paid by the petitioner.

Mr. T. Omo, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, does not support the stand of the petitioner and subscribes to the stand of the State counsel, whereby, the bid of the petitioner has been rejected on technical ground.

After hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it transpires that the point on which the bid of the petitioner has been rejected is the non submission of the up to date GST returns. Though, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for being an optee to pay GST on quarterly basis than on a monthly basis, the requirement was that on the last date of filing of the bid documents, whether his GST was cleared for the last quarter.

Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that though the GST was submitted at the earlier point of time, the document was made available after the last date of opening of the bid documents. The aforesaid

It is a settled position of law that the bidder has to be qualified at the time of the publication of the tender notice and atleast before the last date of submission of such bids and any qualification obtained thereafter shall not be taken into consideration, as the same would open a flood gate.

In the instant case, admittedly, the form reveals that the GST for the last quarter was submitted only on 19.07.2022 and therefore, as on the last date opening of the bids, the petitioner was not in possession of the said certificate. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that rejection of the bid of the petitioner as being technically non- responsive requires any interference.

Accordingly, it is held that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

It is however made clear that in the event, the authorities intend to go for a fresh tender process, the bid temporary offered by the petitioner be examined and consider at par and be treated in accordance with law.