Anshul Varma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the impugned letter did not arbitrarily change the terms and conditions of the tender. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument. It reasoned that clause 2.6.1 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) explicitly grants the authority the right to verify all submitted information and documents and requires the bidder to provide necessary evidence for such verification. Furthermore, clause 4 of Annexure I, which is part of the tender form, contains an undertaking by the bidder to provide any additional information required by the authority to supplement or authenticate the bid. Additionally, clauses (i) and (o) of Annexure II clearly mandate the submission of an Entity Registration Certificate and GST Number for firms/companies. Therefore, it was within the respondents' domain to seek further documents like Sthapna Registration/Gumasta or GST to ascertain the registered status of the firm. The Court concluded that there was no illegality in the impugned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Anshul Varma, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 14.08.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4. This letter followed a tender invitation on 04.07.2023 for establishing, operating, and maintaining a Lok Seva Kendra (LSK) at Barwaha, district Khargone. The petitioner, claiming to have submitted a tender in the name of his firm along with an MSME certificate, was exempted from depositing a bid security of Rs. 1 Lac as per clause 2.2.1 of the tender. However, the impugned letter demanded submission of Sthapna registration/Gumasta/GST certificates by 16.08.2023, failing which the MSME certificate would not be considered. The petitioner argued this was an arbitrary change in tender conditions, not present in the original tender notice or its corrigendum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned letter dated 14.08.2023, demanding Sthapna Registration/Gumasta/GST certificates by 16.08.2023, constitutes an arbitrary change in the terms and conditions of the tender, contrary to the original tender notice and corrigendum-I, thereby violating principles of fair tender process? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the requirement for Sthapna Registration/Gumasta/GST certificates by a specific date was not part of the original tender notice or its corrigendum. Therefore, the respondents could not arbitrarily alter the tender conditions. The petitioner also alleged that this demand was made to favour certain bidders and disadvantage his bid. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the impugned letter did not change the tender conditions but merely sought further documents as per existing clauses of the tender form. They relied on clause 2.6.1 of the tender form, which reserves the authority's right to verify all submitted statements, information, and documents. They also referred to clause 4 of Annexure I, which requires bidders to make available additional information for supplementing or authenticating the bid, and clauses (i) and (o) of Annexure II, which require an Entity Registration Certificate and GST number for firms/companies.