M/S.Seaport Logistics PVT LTD. vs. The Chief Executive Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Seaport Logistics Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging two e-notification tender documents issued by NLC TamilNadu Power Limited (first respondent) and MSTC Limited (second respondent) on 07.04.2018 and 09.04.2018, respectively. These tenders pertained to the transportation of lignite. The petitioner sought to quash these notifications and requested the court to direct the first respondent to consider their representation dated 09.04.2018, which sought to conduct the e-reverse auction only after clarification of the applicable Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate, as per clause 28.0 of the NIT General Commercial Terms and Conditions. The matter was listed for hearing on 06.12.2023.

Held

The Court noted that there was no representation for the petitioner on the date of hearing. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the tender period had already expired, and therefore, nothing remained for adjudication in the writ petition. Recording this submission, the Court closed the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge regarding the GST clarification or the validity of the tender notifications. The issue of the applicable GST rate and its impact on the tender process was not decided. The operative direction was to close the writ petition as infructuous due to the expiry of the tender period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable and requires adjudication on merits, considering the petitioner's prayer for quashing tender notifications and directing a specific procedure for conducting an e-reverse auction based on GST rate clarification. Petitioner's contention (as inferred from the prayer): The petitioner argued that the tender process should be halted or modified to clarify the applicable GST rate before proceeding with the e-reverse auction, as per the tender conditions. They sought intervention to ensure clarity on this tax aspect, which they believed was crucial for fair bidding. Revenue/State's contention (as submitted by R1): The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the tender period had expired, rendering the writ petition infructuous and that nothing further survived for adjudication. This implicitly argued that the court should not proceed with the merits of the petitioner's challenge due to the supervening event of the tender period ending.