Sunshine International Agritech vs. The Finance Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Sunshine International Agritech, sought a writ of mandamus to be allowed to participate in a tender dated 27.10.2022 for the supply of school bags for the year 2023-2024, issued by the Tamil Nadu Text Book and Educational Service Corporation (respondent 3). The petitioner claimed to be a certified vendor as per a Government of India Office Memorandum dated 23.07.2020, allowing procurement from countries sharing a land border with India. The petitioner had paid for the tender document and bid processing fee, including GST. However, the third respondent rejected the petitioner's participation via email on 25.10.2022, stating that as an importer of foreign goods, the petitioner was ineligible because the manufacturing unit needed to comply with various Indian laws and possess specific registrations, which an importer would not. The tender process was governed by the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and Rules, 2000. The tender submission deadline was 27.10.2022.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition. The first limb of the prayer, to permit the petitioner to participate in the tender, was rejected because the tender had already been conducted on 27.10.2022. The second limb, to consider the petitioner's representation, was rendered infructuous as the third respondent had already rejected the claim on 25.10.2022. The Court reasoned that the tender conditions, which mandated that the manufacturing unit must be within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948, Bureau of Industrial Standards, local pollution laws, and possess specific registrations, were paramount. The Court held that the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and its Rules, 2000, exclusively govern the tender procedure, and no Central Act can override these State-specific procedures. The petitioner, being an importer of foreign goods, did not meet these mandatory eligibility criteria. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and had approached the High Court prematurely. The Court did not explicitly address the petitioner's request for the return of the Rs. 30,00,000/- demand draft, but implied it would be considered in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as an importer of foreign goods, is eligible to participate in the tender floated by the Tamil Nadu Text Book and Educational Service Corporation for the supply of school bags, given the tender conditions requiring the manufacturing unit to be within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948, Bureau of Industrial Standards, local pollution laws, and possess specific registrations like PF, ESI, and NABL accreditation? 2. Whether the Central Government's Office Memorandum dated 08.02.2021, permitting procurement from countries sharing a land border, overrides the specific tender conditions set by the State Government? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they are a registered contractor eligible to procure goods from countries sharing a land border with India, as per the Government of India's Office Memorandum dated 08.02.2021. They argued that this central government policy should be considered. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the tender process is strictly governed by the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and Rules, 2000. They asserted that the tender conditions clearly mandate that the manufacturing unit must comply with specific Indian laws and possess required registrations, making an importer ineligible. They also stated that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and that the tender process had already concluded.