B.Mouna Nihitha vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the action of the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation (TSCSCL) and its officials in a tender process. The petitioners responded to a short e-tender notice dated October 16, 2024, for Sector III, Kollapur. The technical bids were opened on October 26, 2024, and financial bids were scheduled for October 28, 2024. The petitioners claimed to be the L-1 and L-2 bidders, respectively, and alleged that their financial bids were not opened. Instead, the contract was declared to be awarded to the 5th respondent, who they claimed was an L-4 unsuccessful tenderer, through a "back door method." The petitioners sought a declaration that this action was illegal and arbitrary, and prayed for the contract to be awarded to them as the lowest tenderers, without insisting on GSTN at present. A stay was also sought on further proceedings.

Held

The Court addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the petitioner in W.P.No.30561 of 2024, who was the L-1 bidder, the Court held that despite being the lowest bidder, they could not be considered because they failed to satisfy the tender conditions by not submitting the GSTN along with the tender form. The Court noted that while the petitioner claimed to have obtained the GSTN subsequently and was ready to submit it, this did not absolve them of the initial requirement. The Court relied on the principle of strict adherence to tender conditions, citing judgments from the Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court, and stated that there is no exemption for individuals from obtaining GSTN if they intend to do business. Therefore, W.P.No.30561 of 2024 was dismissed. Secondly, concerning the petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024, the Court found that the alleged 6-A proceedings were not pending against the petitioner or its proprietor. The documents presented by the respondents pertained to one Vijay Kumar, who was alleged to be a representative, but his representation was not established. Consequently, the disqualification of this petitioner was deemed unsustainable. The Court directed the 4th respondent to consider the financial bid of the petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024, and as they were the L-2 bidder (lower than the 5th respondent), to negotiate with them and finalize the contract accordingly. Therefore, W.P.No.30986 of 2024 was allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.30561 of 2024, being the L-1 bidder, should be considered for the contract despite not submitting the GSTN along with the tender application, as required by the tender conditions? 2. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024 was justified based on allegations of pending 6-A proceedings against them or their representative? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner in W.P.No.30561 of 2024 is the L-1 bidder and obtained the GST certificate on November 29, 2024, and is ready to submit it at the time of agreement. They argued for similar treatment as in a similar contract in Narayanpet where the successful bidder also obtained GSTN subsequently. - The petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024 argued that no 6-A proceedings were pending against them or their proprietor, and the alleged proceedings were against a representative, Vijay Kumar, whose presence as a representative was not established by the respondents. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The respondents contended that the petitioner in W.P.No.30561 of 2024 was disqualified for not submitting GSTN along with the application, which is a mandatory tender condition. - The respondents claimed the petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024 was disqualified due to pending 6-A cases in Wanaparthy and connections with rice millers. - The 5th respondent relied on the counter-affidavit and cited judgments from the Rajasthan High Court and Supreme Court emphasizing strict adherence to tender conditions, particularly regarding the submission of required documents like GSTN and PAN.