M/S. Maa Manasha Printers vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the respondent authority could make the assessment of the financial bid by excluding GST. The Court reasoned that the EOI did not specifically provide for the inclusion or exclusion of GST in the financial rate quoted. The records produced by the respondents showed that the financial bid format included columns for basic rate, GST amount, other taxes, total amount without taxes, and total amount with taxes. The Court found that the adopted formula for calculation, which excluded GST, was common for all participating firms and therefore, it could not be said that the respondent authorities had taken into account a procedure not provided in the EOI. The Court also noted that the modification of the quoted GST percentage was irrelevant since GST was not taken into account. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had not impleaded the firm ranked No. 1, making the writ petition bad for non-joinder of a necessary party. The Court found the petitioner's reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill & Another, W.B State Electricity Board, and Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. inapplicable because the authority had consistently excluded GST for all participants, and the EOI did not mandate its inclusion in the calculation. The Court concluded that the petitioner had no legitimate grievance and dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Manasha Printers, participated in an Expression of Interest (EOI) floated by the Directorate of Agriculture, Government of Assam, for empanelment for publicity works. The petitioner downloaded the tender documents, submitted a technical bid, and was found technically qualified. Subsequently, financial bids were invited. The petitioner, having doubts about certain conditions, submitted a representation which received no response. The petitioner submitted its financial bid and was declared L-1 in two items. However, in the final evaluation by the Departmental Bid/Tender Committee, the petitioner was ranked No. II for these items, despite being L-1. The petitioner alleged that the authority wrongly calculated the rankings by excluding GST from the financial bid, which was not explicitly mentioned in the EOI or financial bid documents. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this evaluation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority could have made the assessment of the financial bid by excluding the Goods and Services Tax (GST) when the EOI and financial bid documents did not explicitly provide for such exclusion? - Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the authority wrongly calculated the rankings by excluding GST, as there was no mention of this in the technical bid or financial bid. This exclusion, according to the petitioner, amounted to pick and choose and indicated vested interest. They relied on precedents like Mohinder Singh Gill & Another and W.B State Electricity Board, emphasizing that the procedure must be transparent, fair, open, and adhered to strictly. - Revenue's Argument: The respondents contended that the actual amount quoted by the participating firms without GST was taken into account for calculation as per the formula provided in the EOI. They argued that this adopted formula was common for all participating firms and therefore, the procedure was not outside the EOI. They also submitted that the modification of the quoted GST percentage was irrelevant as GST was not taken into account. The respondents further argued that the writ petition was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, as the firm ranked No. 1 was not impleaded. They relied on Premierworld Technology Ltd. V. Porbandar Nagarpalika & Anr.