K. Manikandan vs. The District Collector

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the non-submission of the latest GST return by the fifth respondent was not a valid ground for challenging the tender award. A perusal of the tender conditions revealed that there was no explicit mention that the latest GST return was mandatory. The Court noted that the tender clause clearly indicated that only conditions 1 to 8 were mandatory. Since both the petitioner and the fifth respondent submitted their documents, and the fifth respondent was the lowest bidder, the award of work to the fifth respondent could not be challenged on the technical ground of the latest GST return not being produced, especially when it was not stipulated as mandatory. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, a class-I Contractor, challenged an evaluation report dated 25.09.2024 issued by respondents 2 to 4. The petitioner participated in an online tender floated by the second respondent for road improvement. The petitioner alleged that the tender was opened late, that the fifth respondent, who was awarded the work, did not submit proper documents, including notarized documents and an insufficient bank certificate. The petitioner claimed the fifth respondent was awarded the work despite these deficiencies. The respondents countered that both parties submitted relevant documents, the tender was opened on time, and GST certificates were submitted. The fifth respondent quoted a lower amount (Rs. 1,90,500/-) compared to the petitioner (Rs. 1,90,677/-) and 50% of the work was completed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the award of the tender to the fifth respondent is illegal due to the alleged non-submission of a latest GST return, in violation of tender conditions, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the tender conditions, specifically regarding the mandatory submission of the latest GST return, were violated, rendering the award to the fifth respondent invalid? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the fifth respondent failed to enclose the latest GST return, which constitutes a violation of the tender conditions, and despite this, the work was awarded to the fifth respondent. The petitioner contended that this non-compliance makes the award illegal. Respondents' Contention: The respondents argued that both the petitioner and the fifth respondent submitted relevant documents, including GST certificates. They also stated that the tender was opened at the correct time and that the fifth respondent was the lowest bidder. They further contended that the tender conditions did not explicitly state that the latest GST return was mandatory, and only conditions 1 to 8 were marked as mandatory.