Ramesh Chand vs. The Hpsfdcl And Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to upload complete documents at the time of submitting his bid. Specifically, for Lot No. 65, the GST number of his sole proprietorship concern, M/s Sarovar Bar & Restaurant Bani, was found to be not activated. For Lots No. 22 and 30, the petitioner submitted the GST number of Shyamak Enterprises, a partnership firm. The Court reasoned that a partnership firm is a separate legal entity, and its GST number cannot be treated as an individual's personal GST number. The tender condition required the submission of the applicant's personal or sole proprietorship GST number. The Court found that the petitioner had not submitted his personal or sole proprietorship GST number in these cases, but rather the GST number of a firm, which was not a valid document for an individual bid. The Court also addressed the petitioner's claim regarding other bidders, noting that those individuals had submitted GST numbers of their sole proprietorship concerns, not partnership firms, and had applied in their individual capacities. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Corporation had rightly not considered the petitioner's bid due to incomplete documents. No case of arbitrariness or mala fide was made out. The petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Chand, an "A" Class Government Contractor, participated in tenders issued by the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited for felling and transport of forest produce in District Hamirpur. He claims to have been the lowest bidder (L-1) for three lots (Lot No.30/2025-26/Chil/BSR, Lot No.22/2025-26/Chil/BSR, and Lot No.65/2025-26/Chil/Khair/HMR). However, the Corporation awarded the contracts to private respondents. The petitioner alleged that his bid was not considered without any reason being communicated. Upon obtaining information under the RTI Act, he discovered that his bid was rejected for not submitting his individual GST number, although he had submitted the GST number of his partnership firm, Shyamak Enterprises, which had been accepted in the past. He contended that there was no specific condition requiring an individual's personal GST number and that other bidders had also submitted firm GST numbers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bid was liable to be rejected for submitting the GST number of his partnership firm instead of his individual GST number, as per Clause 59(d) of the tender conditions? 2. Whether the Corporation's action in rejecting the petitioner's bid and awarding the contract to others was arbitrary, mala fide, and discriminatory? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he had submitted the GST number of his partnership firm, Shyamak Enterprises, which had been accepted in previous tenders. He contended that there was no specific clause in the tender requiring an individual's personal GST number, and that the GST number of a firm is sufficient for input credit. He also presented evidence that other individuals had submitted GST numbers of their firms or partnership firms, which were accepted. He claimed the Corporation's actions were arbitrary and discriminatory. Respondents' arguments: The Corporation admitted the petitioner's participation in the tender but argued that his submitted documents were not in consonance with Condition No. 59 of the tender. They stated that in one petition, the petitioner's personal GST number was not found to be activated in his name, leading to the bid's non-admission. They further submitted that the petitioner had bid in his individual capacity and failed to furnish a valid, activated personal GST number. They also clarified that in cases where other individuals' bids were accepted despite not submitting personal GST numbers, they had submitted GST numbers of their sole proprietorship concerns, not partnership firms.