Uttar Pradesh Hindi Prakashak Mandal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable for two primary reasons. Firstly, the work orders issued pursuant to the advertisement were not under challenge, and the beneficiaries of these work orders were not impleaded as parties. The Court found that entertaining the petitions under these circumstances would be detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries. Secondly, the Court held that a writ petition filed in a representative capacity by an association, challenging a tender or advertisement, is not maintainable. The Court emphasized that for exercising writ jurisdiction, it is the aggrieved individual whose rights have been infringed who must approach the court, not an association on their behalf. Therefore, both writ petitions were dismissed on grounds of maintainability. The Court, however, clarified that this dismissal would not preclude the petitioners from availing other appropriate remedies available to them. No specific decision was made on the merits of the GST or turnover condition challenges.

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. WPC No. 635 of 2020 was filed by Uttar Pradesh Hindi Prakashak Mandal through its General Secretary, and WPC No. 639 of 2020 was filed by Nagendra Shukla, proprietor of Bal-Bharti Prakashan. Both petitioners challenged an advertisement issued on 07.08.2019 by the Directorate of Public Instruction (Respondent No. 2) for book purchases. The petitioners sought to cancel the work orders issued pursuant to this advertisement, initiate a fresh process, and declare certain conditions, including a minimum turnover requirement and GST-related mandates, as discriminatory and illegal. The State of Chhattisgarh and its departments were the respondents. The Court noted that the work orders issued to selected candidates were not under challenge, and the beneficiaries of these work orders were not made parties to the petitions. The Court also observed that WPC No. 635 of 2020 was filed in a representative capacity by an association.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in the absence of a challenge to the work orders issued and the non-impleadment of the beneficiaries of these work orders. 2. Whether a writ petition challenging an advertisement or tender process can be filed in a representative capacity by an association. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that certain conditions in the advertisement, specifically the mandate of a minimum ₹8 lakh turnover (para 6 of the terms and conditions), were discriminatory. They also contended that illegal and unconstitutional conditions relating to GST were imposed on publishers dealing with printed books, and that the competent authority should not make GST registration mandatory where it is not required under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They sought a direction to initiate a fresh process and include rejected applicants. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State/Revenue. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the State would likely have contended that the petitions were not maintainable due to the lack of challenge to the work orders and the non-impleadment of beneficiaries, and that representative petitions are not maintainable for tender challenges.