Thakurji Enterprises A Proprietorship Firm vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

Thakurji Enterprises, a proprietorship firm, and its proprietor (petitioners) submitted a bid in response to an e-tender notice issued by Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (respondent No. 2) for operating an amusement park and restaurant. Two other bidders also submitted bids. The technical bids of the petitioners and respondent No. 4 were declared non-responsive, while respondent No. 3's bid was deemed responsive. The sole reason for rejecting the petitioners' bid was the non-submission of a self-attested copy of their GST registration, with only a photocopy being provided. The petitioners challenged this decision.

Held

The Court held that the condition of submitting a self-attested copy of GST registration is an ancillary or non-essential condition. The rejection of the petitioner's bid solely on this ground was deemed improper. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the condition is to verify GST registration, which is not disputed by the employer. The lacuna, i.e., the absence of a signature on the GST registration copy, could have been easily cured, and the petitioner could have been asked to attest it even at a later stage. The Court noted that the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by respondent No. 3 was distinguishable on facts. The Court found that rejecting bids for non-compliance with ancillary conditions reduces competition, potentially adversely affecting the public exchequer and public interest. Therefore, the power to reject bids for non-compliance must be exercised with circumspection. The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 03.12.2024 that declared the petitioner's technical bid non-responsive. It also directed that respondent No. 3's technical bid be reassessed, and if the sole ground for rejection was the non-furnishing of a self-attested GST registration copy, it should also be declared responsive. The Technical Evaluation Committee was directed to proceed accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for failing to submit a self-attested copy of GST registration, when a photocopy was provided, constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable decision by the tender inviting authority, particularly when the condition is considered ancillary or non-essential? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of tender evaluation and judicial review). Petitioner's arguments: The requirement of a self-attested GST registration is an ancillary or non-essential condition that can be waived. The primary purpose is to ascertain GST registration, which is not disputed. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Jayam Textiles and Another, emphasizing that procedural defects that are curable should not defeat substantive rights. Respondent No. 3's arguments: The High Court should not substitute its view for that of the tender inviting authority, and decisions of administrative authorities should be respected unless mala fide or bias is alleged. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Resoursys Telecom & Others.