Lifeline Canteen And Restaurant vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Lifeline Canteen and Restaurant, challenged a tender floated on October 9, 2023, by Respondent No. 3, the Joint Director-Cum-Hospital Superintendent of Late Bisahu Das Mahant Smriti Medical College. The petitioner participated in the tender for the year 2023-24 but did not qualify, while Respondent No. 4 was declared L-1. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 did not meet the pre-qualification criteria, specifically regarding GST registration for dietary services, and that the authorities overlooked this. The petitioner also contended that the tender process violated the Model Code of Conduct as it proceeded without prior permission from the Election Commission. The petitioner had previously made representations to Respondent No. 3, which were allegedly not considered before awarding L-1 status to Respondent No. 4. The petitioner claimed to be currently providing dietary services to the medical college without complaint.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the Model Code of Conduct, the Court noted the petitioner's contention that prior permission from the Election Commission was required, but stated that this issue had already been decided by the Court on November 9, 2023, in WPC No. 4786 of 2023, implying no further consideration was warranted on this point. Concerning the eligibility of Respondent No. 4, the Court perused its GST registration certificate, which listed services including 'other contract food services' and 'outdoor catering.' The Court found that a plain reading of the certificate indicated Respondent No. 4 was involved in catering services. The Court held that whether these services specifically fall under 'dietary services' was a matter for the tender authorities to decide, and the High Court, not being an expert in the field, would not interfere. The Court found no grounds worth consideration to interfere with the tender process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender floated on October 9, 2023, is illegal and arbitrary for proceeding without prior permission from the Election Commission, given the Model Code of Conduct was in force, thereby violating the principles of fair tender process. (Petitioner's contention: The tender issuance on the same date as the Model Code of Conduct required prior Election Commission permission, which was not obtained, making the process illegal. Revenue's contention: This issue has already been decided by this Court in WPC No. 4786 of 2023 on November 9, 2023, implying it is not a valid ground for challenge here.) 2. Whether Respondent No. 4, declared L-1, meets the pre-qualification criteria, specifically concerning its GST registration for dietary services, and if the authorities illegally overlooked this non-compliance. (Petitioner's contention: Respondent No. 4's GST registration is not for dietary services, rendering it ineligible, and its award as L-1 is illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's contention: The GST registration certificate of Respondent No. 4 includes 'other contract food services' and 'outdoor catering,' indicating involvement in catering services, and the determination of whether this falls under 'dietary services' is for the tender authorities, not the Court.)