K.D.S.J.S. Construction (Private) Limited vs. The Director Of Town Panchayats

Facts

The petitioner, K.D.S.J.S. Construction (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct respondents 4 and 5 (Executive Officer and President of Special Grade Town Panchayat, Kaliyakkavilai) to issue a Tender Registration License. The petitioner had submitted an application on July 31, 2023, for registration as a contractor. The respondents contended that the petitioner's application was not considered because the required registration fee had not been paid. The petitioner disputed this, asserting that the fee was paid and necessary documents, including a GST Certificate and Solvency Certificate, were enclosed.

Held

The Court considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. It noted the petitioner's claim of having applied for contractor registration with the respondent Panchayat on July 31, 2023, submitting the application, required documents, and fee. This was disputed by the respondents, who stated the registration fee was not paid. In light of this dispute, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents. The respondents are to take a decision on the petitioner's application after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to pay the necessary registration fee and produce the relevant documents. The respondents are to dispose of the application within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner is directed to submit the necessary documents through registered post and pay the required registration fee via Demand Draft in the interim. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for Tender Registration License is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of non-payment of registration fee, when the petitioner claims to have paid it and submitted other required documents, including a GST Certificate? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the Panchayat's registration procedures and the petitioner's compliance). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had paid the required registration fee and submitted all necessary documents, including the GST Certificate and Solvency Certificate, along with their application dated July 31, 2023. They sought a direction for the issuance of the license. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents (Panchayat officials) contended, on instructions, that the petitioner's application had not been considered because the required registration fee was not paid. They did not explicitly address the petitioner's claim of having paid the fee or submitted other documents.