3 Naam Enterprises vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2nd Respondent within one week, detailing its grievances. If such a representation is filed within the stipulated time, the 2nd Respondent is directed to consider it and take appropriate action concerning the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law. This action must include providing an opportunity to all stakeholders and should be completed within two weeks thereafter. The Court did not make a finding on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding being the sole bidder or the validity of the 3rd Respondent's action, but rather facilitated a process for resolution.
Facts
The petitioner, a proprietary concern registered for GST, supplies biodegradable covers primarily to religious institutions. The petitioner submitted an online tender in response to an e-procurement notification for the supply of biodegradable covers to the 3rd Respondent, Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam. The petitioner contends that as it was the sole bidder, the contract should have been confirmed in its favor. However, the 3rd Respondent, ignoring the petitioner, wrote to the 2nd Respondent-Commissioner of Endowments on March 18, 2018, requesting confirmation of the tender in favor of the 4th Respondent. No further action has been taken by the 2nd Respondent regarding this letter.
Key Issues
1. Whether the 2nd Respondent-Commissioner of Endowments should consider the petitioner's representation regarding its tender for the supply of biodegradable covers to the 3rd Respondent-Devasthanam, given that the petitioner was the sole bidder and the 3rd Respondent's letter dated March 18, 2018, to the 2nd Respondent has not yet resulted in a decision. The petitioner argues that the contract should have been awarded to it as the sole tenderer. The revenue or State's argument is not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but the court's direction implies a need for consideration of the petitioner's claim and opportunity for all stakeholders.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.16331 OF 2018 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd Respondent-Devasthanam. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a proprietary concern bearing registration GST No.36240167576, dated.28-06-2017 and has been doing business in supply of Biodegradable covers mainly to the religious institutions in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. In response to the “e-procurement’ tender notification published in the newspapers on 17-02-2018 for supply of Biodegradable covers to the 3rd Respondent- Sri Kalahasteeswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, the petitioner submitted its online tender. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents- authorities should have confirmed the contract in favour of the petitioner alone as it alone submitted the online tender in response to the above said notification. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that totally ignoring the petitioner herein, the 3rd Respondent
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.