Ravi Offset Printers And Publishers PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the conditions embodied in sub-clauses 1 and 4 of Clause 9(A) of the e-tender dated April 21, 2022, are not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of tender conditions, stating that the tender issuing authority is best placed to understand its requirements. The Court found that the conditions subserve the purpose for which the tender was floated and that technical evaluation by the court is impermissible. The Court also clarified that a 'dispute' arises from a disagreement, and in this case, disputes regarding unpaid royalty and GST, along with demand notices, clearly existed. Striking down these clauses would create an undesirable situation, allowing defaulters and chronic litigants to participate. Therefore, the Court found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned clauses.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Offset Printers And Publishers Pvt. Ltd., participated in an e-tender for printing and supply of NCERT books for academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. They were the lowest bidder and awarded a contract on March 3, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the petitioner could not fulfill its obligations, leading to disputes with the second respondent, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, regarding royalty and GST payments. Demand notices were issued between March 12, 2020, and December 30, 2020. The petitioner invoked arbitration, and an arbitrator was appointed. Subsequently, a new e-tender was issued on April 21, 2022, for the academic year 2022-2023, containing conditions that rendered publishers with pending royalty and GST disputes ineligible. The petitioner challenged these conditions in a writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether sub-clauses 1 and 4 of Clause 9(A) of the e-tender dated April 21, 2022, are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, thereby making the petitioner ineligible to participate in the tender? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal, violating Article 19 of the Constitution. They argued that past disputes regarding royalty and GST should not disqualify them from participating in the tender, especially when the amounts are not quantified. They also argued that the zone of consideration should not be compartmentalized to exclude them, and screening occurs later. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as it seeks alteration of tender terms, which is beyond the scope of Article 226. They asserted that the tender issuing authority has the right to set terms and conditions, and an aspirant cannot dictate them.