M/S Mata Di Irrigation System vs. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mata Di Irrigation System, participated in a Rate Contract Offer (RCO) issued by Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited (Respondent No. 1) for the supply of horticulture tools and toolkits. The petitioner's technical bid was rejected, initially communicated as a failure to meet Eligibility Condition No. 1. However, Respondent No. 1 later sought to justify the rejection based on Eligibility Condition No. 3, alleging that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (M/s Mata Di Agri Implements), who are brothers, are sister concerns and had falsely declared that no other firm belonging to the same group was participating. The sole basis for this claim was the similarity in the Khasra numbers provided in their addresses. The petitioner contended that their GST registration showed different room/holding numbers within the same Bhawan.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was based on wholly untenable grounds. The Court found that the sole basis for Respondent No. 1's conclusion that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were sister concerns/associates was the similarity in Khasra numbers provided in their addresses. However, the Court noted that the GST registration certificates clearly indicated that the petitioner occupied Bhawan No. 138, while Respondent No. 2 occupied Bhawan No. 139, signifying separate rooms. The Court reasoned that all rooms within a Bhawan would share the same Khasra number, and therefore, merely having the same Khasra number does not establish that businesses operating from the same Bhawan are sister concerns or associates. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are brothers, but this fact alone does not preclude them from carrying on their own businesses independently. Consequently, the Court found no justification for the rejection of the petitioner's bid. Despite this finding, the Court noted that the RCO had already been finalized on 23.03.2022, prior to the interim order passed by the Court, and the selected tenderers were not impleaded as parties. Therefore, no other relief could be granted to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid by Respondent No. 1 was justified on the grounds that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are sister concerns/associates, violating Eligibility Condition No. 3? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection was based on untenable grounds. They pointed out that their GST registration indicated separate room/holding numbers (Bhawan No. 138 for the petitioner and Bhawan No. 139 for Respondent No. 2), demonstrating they are distinct entities. The petitioner asserted that merely sharing a Khasra number, which applies to an entire Bhawan, does not make two businesses sister concerns, especially when they occupy separate rooms. They also highlighted that the initial ground for rejection (Eligibility Condition No. 1) was abandoned. Respondent No. 1's Arguments: Respondent No. 1 contended that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are sister concerns/associates, as evidenced by the similar Khasra numbers in their addresses. They argued that this fact was suppressed by the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, who submitted a false declaration under Eligibility Condition No. 3, stating that no other firm belonging to the same group was participating. The respondent sought to sustain the rejection on this basis.