M/S. P.S. Construction vs. Ntpc Limited

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P.S. Construction, a vendor previously engaged by NTPC Limited, filed a writ petition challenging their exclusion from a tender process for safeguarding ST Equipment. The tender was floated on the GeM Portal for services required for two years. The petitioner claims they were not sent the tender form, despite prior successful engagements with NTPC, and were not on the list of eligible bidders. They allege a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, as their grievances, communicated through letters and legal notices, were not addressed. The tender was ultimately awarded to respondent No. 3. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to submit additional terms and conditions as stipulated in clause 3 of the tender document, and a work order had already been issued.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit. The primary reason for dismissal was the petitioner's failure to enclose the additional terms and conditions as specified in clause 3 of the tender document, which included Buyer Added Bid Specific ATC. The Court also noted that a work order had already been issued in favour of respondent No. 3. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the tender process or the award of the contract. The petitioner's arguments regarding violation of Article 14 and principles of natural justice were implicitly rejected due to the non-compliance with the tender conditions. The Court did not expressly decide on the applicability of GST provisions as no specific GST issue was raised or discussed in detail, beyond the mention of GST in the tender conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the exclusion of the petitioner from the tender process for safeguarding ST Equipment, despite prior successful engagements with NTPC, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that the tender was an open offer and their exclusion without reason, and without responding to their legal notices, breached constitutional provisions and natural justice. They asserted they fulfilled all participation conditions. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with Clause 3 of the tender document, which required submission of additional terms and conditions, including Buyer Added Bid Specific ATC. They also pointed out that a work order had already been issued to respondent No. 3, making the petition liable for dismissal.