Suja Sunil vs. Ministry Of Railways And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the rejection of the petitioner's bid was justified. Regarding the FSSAI certificate, the Court found that Clause 3.5.1 clearly indicated it was a mandatory requirement, irrespective of its inclusion in Annexure-II. The Court also held that the experience certificates, an extremely important requirement for a catering tender, were rightly rejected as they were not certified by a Chartered Accountant, as stipulated in Clause 3.2.1. The Court found no force in the petitioner's argument that notarization was sufficient, emphasizing that tender terms are to be followed as drafted. While acknowledging that the audited balance sheet for 2017-18 might not have been prepared, the Court noted that the petitioner could have provided Profit and Loss Accounts or Income Tax Returns to comply with Condition 3.3.2. However, the Court found that the discrepancies in the petitioner's name across the PAN card, Aadhaar card, and GSTIN registration were not sufficient grounds for disqualification, as a careful reading would allow the respondents to identify the same person, especially since the trade name remained consistent. Despite this finding on the name discrepancy, the Court concluded that the other deficiencies, particularly the lack of a Chartered Accountant's certification for experience and the absence of an FSSAI certificate, were valid reasons for rejection. The Court applied the principle from Tata Cellular v. Union of India, stating that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the decision itself, and found no infirmity in the process. The Court also distinguished the case of Quippo Oil and Gas Infrastructure Ltd., holding that experience certificates and FSSAI certificates are essential, not ancillary, documents.

Facts

The petitioner, Suja Sunil, a woman entrepreneur with ten years of experience in catering, challenged the rejection of her bid for sixteen catering stalls at New Delhi Railway Station. The tender was invited on June 8, 2018, for a five-year period. The petitioner submitted her bid on July 17, 2018. After the highest bidder was disqualified, the petitioner, as the second highest bidder, expected to be awarded the tender. However, her bid was rejected without disclosure of grounds. Subsequently, she learned of the rejection and filed a writ petition challenging a prior condition requiring audited accounts for 2017-18. The respondents, Ministry of Railways and others, contended that the petitioner failed to comply with tender conditions, citing the absence of an FSSAI certificate and non-compliance with experience criteria, as the submitted documents were not certified by a Chartered Accountant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's bid was rightly rejected for not submitting an FSSAI certificate as per Clause 3.5.1 of the tender conditions? 2. Whether the petitioner's experience certificates were rightly rejected for not being certified by a Chartered Accountant as required by Clause 3.2.1? 3. Whether the discrepancies in the petitioner's name across the PAN card, Aadhaar card, and GSTIN registration were sufficient grounds for disqualification? 4. Whether the petitioner's failure to submit Income Tax Returns for the financial year 2017-18 was a valid reason for rejection? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the FSSAI certificate was not a mandatory requirement and was not listed in Chapter 3 of the eligibility criteria. She contended that the experience certificates were duly notarized and that Income Tax Returns for 2017-18 could not have been filed as the financial year had not ended. She also argued that the discrepancies in names were minor and did not prevent identification, and that the rejected documents were ancillary, not essential. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with tender conditions by not enclosing an FSSAI certificate and that her experience certificates were not suitable as they were not certified by a Chartered Accountant. They also submitted that the PAN card, GST card, and Aadhaar card contained different names, leading to disqualification, and that IT Returns for 2017-2018 were not filed.