M.Vittal vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, M. Viftal, participated in a tender process initiated by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) for a fast food center stall. He submitted a bid of Rs. 6,61,999/-, intending it to be inclusive of GST. However, due to an error in the online tender form, this amount was mistakenly entered in the column for bids 'without GST'. The petitioner realized this mistake and submitted a representation on November 17, 2023, requesting his bid be considered inclusive of GST. After filing a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 32781 of 2023) which directed the respondent to consider his representation, the TSRTC issued an allotment order on December 6, 2023, demanding GST in addition to the bid amount. The petitioner made another representation on December 11, 2023. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated December 18, 2023, rejected the petitioner's request, citing Clause 15 of the tender conditions which stipulated that GST would be paid in addition to the basic bid.

Held

The Court held that it was hesitant to accept the petitioner's contentions. The Court noted that Clause 15 of the tender notification clearly stipulated that the amount offered by the tenderer (basic price) towards monthly license fee shall be exclusive of electricity, maintenance, water charges, GST, and others. The Court further observed that the entire tender process is electronic, designed to avoid human intervention and errors, and bidders are required to abide by the prescribed terms and conditions. The Court found that the price quoted was exclusive not only of GST but also of other charges, and therefore, the petitioner could not request to exclude GST only. The Court reiterated that judicial interference in tender matters under Article 226 is minimal and limited. Consequently, the Court found the writ petition liable to be dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bid of Rs. 6,61,999/-, mistakenly entered in the 'without GST' column, should be treated as inclusive of GST, despite Clause 15 of the tender conditions stating that GST is payable in addition to the basic bid? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he intended his bid to be inclusive of GST and that the entry in the 'without GST' column was an inadvertent mistake. He relies on his representation and the previous court order directing consideration of his representation. He argues that the respondent's action is arbitrary and illegal. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent TSRTC argues that the petitioner, being a veteran tenderer, cannot claim a mistake after participating in the tender process without protest and after the contract was awarded. They rely on the principle of 'approbate and reprobate' and emphasize that Clause 15 of the tender conditions clearly states that the basic bid is exclusive of GST and other charges. They also highlight that the tender process is electronic to avoid errors and that bidders must abide by the terms and conditions.