Orient Paper Mills Having Its Registered Office At Unit Viii Plot No. 7 Bhoinagar Bhubaneshwar Orris vs. Madhya Pradesh Taxt Book Corporation

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was validly declared technically disqualified. The primary reasons for this finding were twofold. Firstly, the petitioner failed to provide a GST clearance certificate that specifically certified the quantity of empty printing paper cleared under Tariff Code 4802, as required by the NIT. Instead, the petitioner provided a certificate for the broader Chapter 48 of the GST Tariff, which encompasses all kinds of paper, not just the specified printing paper. Secondly, the petitioner failed to provide a notarized declaration that the paper offered was S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Printing Paper, omitting the essential 'S.S. (surface sized)' designation. The Court noted that the sample submitted also omitted these words. Consequently, the bid was deemed non-responsive and did not meet the tender specifications. The Court found no fault with the respondents' decision to disqualify the petitioner on these grounds. The contention that the tender specification itself was technically impossible was left open as it was not the subject of the present petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Orient Paper Mills, challenged a notification dated 18.08.2025 and a letter dated 25.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.1, M.P. Text Book Corporation. The notification informed the petitioner that its financial bid would not be opened, and the letter communicated its technical disqualification in a tender for the supply of 80 GSM Watermark SS Maplitho Printing Paper. The petitioner sought to be declared technically qualified and for its financial bid to be opened. The disqualification was based on the petitioner's technical bid not fulfilling several clauses of the tender document. The petitioner contended that certain tender specifications, such as 'Wax pick - No pick on 10A with 20% mechanical Pulp maximum,' were not possible for SS Maplitho Printing Paper. The respondents produced a test report showing a sample paper met the bid document's specifications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was validly declared technically disqualified in the tender for the supply of 80 GSM Watermark SS Maplitho Printing Paper, concerning the requirements of the tender document, specifically clause 4802 of the GST Tariff and the declaration regarding S.S. Maplitho Printing Paper? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the requirement for 'Wax pick - No pick on 10A with 20% mechanical Pulp maximum' was impossible for SS Maplitho Printing Paper. They also implicitly argued that their submitted GST clearance certificate and declaration regarding the paper offered were compliant. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent No.1 argued that the petitioner's bid was non-responsive and the rejection was valid, stating there was no challenge to the tender specifications themselves. They contended that the petitioner failed to provide a clearance certificate specifying the quantity of paper cleared under Tariff Code 4802 of the GST, instead providing a certificate for the broader Chapter 48. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide a notarized declaration that the paper offered was S.S. (surface sized) Maplitho Printing Paper, omitting the crucial 'S.S. (surface sized)' designation.