Devyani Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sanstha Through President Sundarbai Sakharam Patil vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Held

The Court did not entertain the petition. The primary reason for dismissal was the fact that the work order had already been issued, indicating the tender process had concluded and the contract awarded. While the petitioner argued for the sufficiency of a GST certificate in lieu of a Sales Tax 'no dues certificate' post-GST implementation, the Court's decision focused on the procedural stage of the tender and the issuance of the work order. The Court found the respondent's submission regarding the petitioner's failure to submit the required 'no dues certificate' from the Sales Tax Department, and the subsequent rejection by the committee, to be a sufficient basis for not interfering. The ratio decidendi appears to be that once a work order is issued in a tender process, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, may be reluctant to intervene, especially when the rejection was based on a clear non-compliance with tender conditions as interpreted by the tendering authority. The Court dismissed the petition without costs.

Facts

The petitioner, Devyani Bahuddheshiya Mahila Sanstha, participated in a tender bid to supply meals to Bhusawal Prison. Their technical bid was rejected, preventing further participation. The petitioner contended that the authorities should have provided reasons for the rejection. The respondent, through an affidavit, stated that seven entities participated, and six submitted all required documents. The petitioner, however, failed to submit a 'no dues certificate' from the Sales Tax Department until 2017, instead submitting a GST certificate. The respondents also argued that the petitioner should have raised objections during the bid opening. A committee found the petitioner ineligible due to the missing Sales Tax 'no dues certificate' and rejected the tender on December 20, 2018. The work order has since been issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid for failing to submit a 'no dues certificate' from the Sales Tax Department, when a GST certificate was submitted, was justified, particularly in light of the introduction of the GST regime? (Question of law/mixed fact and law, concerning tender conditions and applicability of tax certificates). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that after the introduction of the GST regime, the submission of a GST certificate from the concerned authority should have been sufficient, implying the Sales Tax certificate was no longer relevant or should have been accepted in lieu of the GST certificate. The petitioner also argued that the authorities ought to have provided specific reasons for the rejection. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the tender specifically required a 'no dues certificate' from the Sales Tax Department until 2017, and the petitioner's submission of a GST certificate instead was non-compliant. They also contended that the petitioner failed to raise any objections during the bid opening process, and the committee rightly rejected the tender based on the submitted documents.