Yagya Kumar Rathore Tour And Travels vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the decision-making process was vitiated due to the non-consideration of Clause 4.3.3 of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002. The Court found that the second proviso to Clause 4.3.3, requiring a minimum of three eligible bidders, was in force when the present tender was issued on 05.06.2021, having been inserted on 29.12.2020. The Court noted that this provision was not even deliberated upon during the technical and financial bid opening, despite the petitioner's assertion. The Court distinguished the present case from previous judgments cited by the respondents (M/s Nidhi Kumar Bagh and Tuleshwar Singh), stating that there was no discernible pressing need or urgency in this case, unlike in those precedents where Rule 16 (relaxation of rules in special circumstances) was considered. Consequently, the order dated 28.07.2021, which identified the L-1 bidders, was set aside and quashed. The respondent authorities were granted liberty to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with the law. The Court did not explicitly address the eligibility of respondent No. 6 based on its GST certificate, as the primary ground for setting aside the tender was the non-compliance with the minimum bidder requirement.

Facts

The petitioner, Yagya Kumar Rathore, challenged a tender process initiated by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, National Health Mission, District Janjgir-Champa. The tender was for hiring vehicles for the year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that only two bidders, himself and respondent No. 6, were technically qualified, whereas Rule 2.1 and the second proviso to Rule 4.3.3 of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002, mandate a minimum of three eligible bidders. Despite the petitioner's objection on 07.07.2021, the respondents proceeded with the tender, identifying respondent No. 6 as the L-1 bidder on 28.07.2021. The petitioner also argued that respondent No. 6's GST certificate did not indicate dealing in cab/taxi hiring services.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender process for hiring vehicles for the year 2021-22 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the requirement of a minimum of three eligible bidders as stipulated in the second proviso to Rule 4.3.3 of the Chhattisgarh Store Purchase Rules, 2002? (Question of law) 2. Whether respondent No. 6 was an eligible bidder for the tender, considering its GST registration details? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the second proviso to Rule 4.3.3 of the Rules of 2002, which mandates a minimum of three eligible bidders, was applicable and had been ignored. The tender process was arbitrarily proceeded with despite the petitioner's objection. The petitioner also contended that respondent No. 6 was not an eligible bidder as its GST certificate did not reflect dealing in cab/taxi hiring services. Respondents' arguments: The State respondents argued that the tender was the third attempt to procure vehicles, and the Purchase Committee had the authority to accept or reject tenders based on rules and urgency. Respondent No. 6 adopted the State's stand and argued that the requirement for a specific mention in the GST certificate was not necessary, referencing Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and previous High Court judgments.