Amit Enterprises Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

Amit Enterprises Private Limited (Petitioner) participated in a trial tender floated by Union of India through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal for South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Respondent No. 3). The tender required participants to submit technical qualification, commercial evaluation, and price bids. The Petitioner was disqualified on August 2, 2024, with the reason cited as quoting prices with elements like GST, Freight, P&F, and Insurance as extra, contrary to the GeM and NIT requirement for all-inclusive prices. The Petitioner submitted a representation on November 20, 2024, clarifying that the quoted price was a 'landing rate' inclusive of all components. This representation was rejected with a one-line reasoning identical to the disqualification reason. The Petitioner filed the present writ petition on April 9, 2025, seeking to quash the disqualification and rejection of its representation, and to direct the opening of its price bid.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to adhere to the requirement of submitting an all-inclusive/consolidated/landed price as stipulated in Clause 6 (iii) of the General Terms & Conditions. This was evidenced by the Petitioner's bid document dated May 6, 2024, wherein it declared that it would charge 'extra' for Packing & Forwarding, Freight Charges, Insurance, and GST on the basic price. This deviation from the essential stipulation compelled South Eastern Coalfields Limited to disqualify the Petitioner. The Court also noted that the Petitioner's representation was referred to an Independent Expert Monitor, who upheld the tendering process and rejected the Petitioner's contentions. Furthermore, the work order for the tender was issued on April 12, 2025, concluding the tendering process. The Court found that the Petitioner was disqualified on August 2, 2024, and its representation was rejected on November 20, 2024, but the writ petition was filed only on April 9, 2025, after a delay of over four months without explanation. Therefore, the Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's disqualification from Bid Number GEM/2024/B/4848773 was justified, considering the Petitioner's contention that the price quoted was inclusive of all components and taxes, and the Respondent's assertion that the Petitioner declared certain elements as extra, thereby violating the tender conditions? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the price quoted was a 'landing rate' inclusive of all components and GST, and the declaration was merely to list the included components. They contended that the rejection of their clarification was done without application of mind and that their bid met the tender requirements. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent argued that the Petitioner violated essential stipulations by declaring that it would charge 'extra' for Packing & Forwarding, Freight Charges, Insurance, and GST on the basic price, as per their bid document dated May 6, 2024. They further contended that the Petitioner's representation lacked merit, the tendering process was concluded with a work order issued on April 12, 2025, and the petition suffered from delay and laches, having been filed over four months after the disqualification and rejection of representation.