Mohammad Rasheed Qureshi vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the tender awarded to respondent No. 6. The Court observed that the documents submitted by the petitioner, dated 07.11.2015 and 21.11.2017, were neither registration certificates nor permissions to establish a slaughterhouse, and the issuing authority (Respondent No. 3) was not competent to grant such permissions; municipal authorities are competent. The Court noted that respondent No. 6 did possess a valid slaughterhouse license dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Municipal Corporation, whereas the petitioner had never been issued such a license by the Municipal Corporation. Consequently, the Court found the writ petition to be devoid of substance and merit. The Court did not explicitly address the validity of respondent No. 6's current bid documents, focusing instead on the petitioner's standing and the nature of the petitioner's own purported licenses.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Rasheed Qureshi, filed a writ petition challenging the opening of a technical bid in favour of respondent No. 6 for the supply of meat to Mukundpur Zoo for the year 2026-27. The petitioner, a long-time supplier to the zoo, alleged that respondent No. 6 lacked the requisite valid slaughterhouse license, relying on a cancelled and expired license, a Food Safety and Standards Act registration, and a certificate from a Gram Panchayat without statutory authority. The petitioner also pointed to a prior order finding respondent No. 6 operating a bone factory without licenses. The respondents argued that the bids were evaluated according to tender conditions and applicable rules, and that disputed questions of fact were involved, unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent No. 6 possessed a valid slaughterhouse license satisfying the eligibility criteria stipulated in Clauses 8 and 9 of the tender document, particularly in light of previous judicial pronouncements regarding the expiry and cancellation of its purported license dated 16.10.2020, and the validity of the Food Safety and Standards Act registration and the Gram Panchayat certificate. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that respondent No. 6's slaughterhouse license dated 16.10.2020 was cancelled and expired, a fact already established by this Court in W.P. No. 18114/2025. The Food Safety and Standards Act registration and the Gram Panchayat certificate do not qualify as valid slaughterhouse licenses. The Gram Panchayat lacks the statutory authority to issue such licenses. Therefore, respondent No. 6 is ineligible, and awarding the contract to it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the bids were considered in accordance with tender terms and rules. The Tender Evaluation Committee duly examined the documents. They also contended that the validity and evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by respondent No. 6 involve disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 without cogent evidence.