Shanmuganathan.S vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, S. Shanmuganathan, filed a writ petition challenging the selection list dated 30.09.2022 issued by the respondents, seeking to quash it and direct the respondents to consider his bid as the highest bidder for four shops in the Regulated Market Committee Buildings, Ramanathapuram. The petitioner had submitted tender applications in response to a notification dated 18.09.2022 for taking shops on rent. His applications were rejected by the second respondent on the grounds that he had not enclosed the relevant documents as stipulated in the tender conditions. The petitioner contended that these conditions were not explicitly mentioned in the tender notification and therefore could not be insisted upon later. The respondents are the District Collector, the Special Officer/Deputy Director of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Ramanathapuram Market Committee, and the Superintendent of the Regulated Market Committee, along with private respondents 5 and 6.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that the tender conditions could not be insisted upon if not explicitly detailed in the tender notification lacked merit. The Court referred to a previous order in W.P.No.20283 and 20290 of 2022, which stated that once a tender document is submitted, the tenderer is deemed to have accepted all the conditions imposed by the authority. The Court emphasized that the decision on which conditions to impose in a tender document rests with the authority floating the tender and not with the courts. Since the petitioner admittedly did not comply with the stipulated tender conditions, his applications were rightly rejected. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender conditions requiring the submission of documents related to business turnover for the past three years and proof of GST payment for the preceding month can be insisted upon even if not explicitly detailed in the initial tender notification (Question of Law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the specific conditions regarding the submission of business turnover and GST payment documents were not clearly set out in the tender notification, they could not be subsequently insisted upon by the authorities for rejecting his bid. Respondents' contention: The respondents, particularly the third respondent, relied on a previous order in W.P.No.20283 and 20290 of 2022. They argued that by submitting a tender application, a tenderer implicitly accepts all the conditions imposed by the authority, and challenging these conditions after submission is not permissible. They further contended that the authority floating the tender is best placed to decide which conditions to impose, and courts should not interfere with such decisions.