Deepali Enterprises vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Deepali Enterprises, challenged a tender floated by Respondent No. 3 on October 9, 2023, for dietary services. A previous tender for 2022-23 was withdrawn due to disputes. The petitioner argued that the new tender's requirement for registration as a "Dietary Service" instead of "Diet Service" barred their participation, as their GST registration was under "Diet Service." They also contended that the tender was issued in violation of the Model Code of Conduct, which came into force on October 9, 2023, alleging a "pick and choose" policy to eliminate potential participants. The State argued that the tender was issued on October 6, 2023, with publication on October 8 and 9, 2023, predating the Code of Conduct announcement. They also asserted that the previous tender also mentioned "Dietary Service" and the current tender merely defined it.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court found that the tender was issued on October 6, 2023, with publication on October 8 and 9, 2023, which was prior to the announcement of the Model Code of Conduct on October 9, 2023. Therefore, the argument regarding the violation of the Code of Conduct was rejected. Regarding the terminology change from "Diet Service" to "Dietary Service," the Court noted that the previous tender dated April 16, 2022, also mentioned "Dietary Service" under the selection criteria. The Court concluded that the nature of the work had not changed, and the present tender only provided a definition and requirements for "Dietary Service." The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others, emphasizing judicial restraint in contractual matters unless clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality is established. The Court found no such grounds to interfere in this case. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the change in terminology from "Diet Service" to "Dietary Service" in the tender document constitutes an arbitrary action that bars the petitioner from participating, thereby violating principles of fairness and potentially Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the issuance of the tender on October 9, 2023, in light of the Model Code of Conduct coming into force on the same date, is a violation of electoral norms and administrative propriety? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their GST registration as a "Diet Service" provider prevented them from meeting the "Dietary Service" requirement in the new tender, creating hardship. They contended that this change was made to accommodate other bidders and that the tender's issuance on the same day the Model Code of Conduct was enforced indicated an illegal policy of elimination. They relied on their experience and registration as a "Diet Service" provider. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the tender publication predated the Model Code of Conduct announcement. They further contended that the previous tender also referred to "Dietary Service" and that the current tender merely provided a definition and requirements for this service, without changing the nature of the work. Therefore, the petitioner's contention regarding the terminology change was incorrect.