M/S. K.L. Mehta And Co. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of its bid for a tender floated by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSC) for raw ayurvedic medicine, plants, and herbs. The NIT was issued on May 12, 2022. The petitioner submitted its bid and EMD. CGMSC declared the petitioner ineligible, citing deficiencies in submitted documents. The petitioner claims these deficiencies were minor and that it had submitted all requisite documents, including GST registration and a Gumasta License issued under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958. The petitioner alleges favoritism towards respondents 4 and 5. The tender process was ongoing, with the price bid not yet opened.

Held

The Court held that the action of the respondent authorities was not arbitrary, nor was the decision to declare the petitioner ineligible actuated by malice or bias. The Court found that the respondent authorities awarded the work as per the terms stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). The decision to award the contract was deemed neither unjustified nor unwarranted. Consequently, the Court found no good ground for interference in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit. The interim stay order was also vacated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner Firm's bid was wrongly declared ineligible by the CGMSC authorities, considering the nature of the pointed-out deficiencies and the documents submitted by the petitioner, particularly in light of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, and its compliance with tender conditions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the deficiencies highlighted by CGMSC were collateral or ancillary, not essential conditions. They contended that they had submitted GST Registration, Registration Certificate of Shops and Commercial Establishments under the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, and Udyam Registration Certificate. They also argued that the Gumasta license is a local term in Chhattisgarh, and the Punjab Act license serves the same purpose. The petitioner claimed respondents 4 and 5 were favored and that the tender process was not finalized, so interference would not adversely impact it. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (CGMSC) argued that bidders had to submit all requisite documents online before the last date. They stated that the petitioner failed to submit a Gumasta or valid license and incorrectly mentioned the financial year. They emphasized that no documents would be accepted separately after the initial submission and that the petitioner failed to fulfill mandatory conditions.