Rasoi Canteen & Caterer vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Limited

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's financial bid was indeed conditional, as evidenced by the statement "all catering should be given to us for which rates are given, no other vender should be allowed to do catering in Garden of Five Senses." While acknowledging a potential for confusion in the tender document's phrasing, the Court found that the NIT clearly invited proposals for "running two kiosks" and not for exclusive catering rights. Regarding the tax issue, the Court found that the petitioner's bid stated "Rs.3,72,000/- (Including Tax)", which was contrary to Clause 8 of the tender conditions requiring bidders to pay all taxes over and above the bid amount. The Court also noted that Note 1 of Annexure-II, relied upon by the petitioner, was part of the technical bid format and could not override the explicit terms of the financial bid. Given these findings and the fact that the tender had already been awarded, the Court found no grounds to interfere. The petition and application were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Rasoi Canteen & Caterer, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its financial bid by the Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Limited (DTTDC) for a contract to run two food kiosks at the Garden of Five Senses. The petitioner qualified the technical bid but its financial bid was rejected. The DTTDC cited two reasons for rejection: (1) the petitioner made a conditional offer, and (2) the financial bid was not in terms of Clause 8 of the tender conditions. The petitioner argued that the phraseology of the tender notice led to confusion regarding the exclusivity of the contract and that its bid was exclusive of GST. The DTTDC stated that the tender had already been awarded to another bidder.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's financial bid was conditional and thus liable for rejection under the tender conditions? 2. Whether the petitioner's financial bid was in compliance with Clause 8 of the tender conditions regarding the payment of taxes? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the rejection of its bid was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. It argued that the phrase "running catering units" in the financial bid form, as opposed to "running two kiosks" in the NIT, led to the assumption of an exclusive contract. Regarding the tax issue, the petitioner claimed it was agreeable to GST being over and above the quoted license fee, clarifying its bid of Rs. 3,72,000/- was exclusive of GST as per Note 1 of Annexure-II of the NIT. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner's bid was rejected because it was conditional, specifically the condition that "all catering should be given to us for which rates are given, no other vender should be allowed to do catering in Garden of Five Senses." The respondent also contended that the petitioner's bid of "Rs.3,72,000/- (Including Tax)" was contradictory to Clause 8 of the tender conditions, which stipulated that all taxes would be over and above the bid amount. The respondent further submitted that the tender had already been awarded to M/s Commercial Food Services.