2023 (9) TMI 1234 - HC - GST

Rejection of Bid of tender - rejected solely on the ground that GST returns have been filed for only last 5 months and return of March and April 2023 has not been filed - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TATA MOTORS LIMITED VERSUS THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC) SUPPLY TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS 2023 (5) TMI 1253 - SUPREME COURT held that The BEST committed no error or cannot be held guilty of favoritism, etc. in allowing EVEY to submit a revised Annexure Y as the earlier one was incorrect on account of a clerical error. This exercise itself was not sufficient to declare the entire bid offered by EVEY as unlawful or illegal. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the considering the judgment of Hon ble the Apex Court in Tata Motors Ltd and particularly the fact that the respondent No.3, M/s. Govind Kumar Agarwal has already been selected as successful bidder L-1, there are no good ground to entertain this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a bid in a tender process based on incomplete GST returns and the subsequent legal challenge regarding the disqualification of the petitioner and the selection of another bidder.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of Bid Based on GST Returns
The Respondent No. 2, the Municipal Council, rejected the bid of the Petitioner in a tender process for the construction of a road due to incomplete GST returns. The Petitioner challenged this rejection through a writ petition, arguing that the disqualification was arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the terms of the tender document. The Petitioner highlighted that another successful bidder also had issues with filing returns. The Petitioner sought the court to declare the disqualification as arbitrary and illegal.

Issue 2: Legal Challenge and Judicial Review
The Petitioner contended that the rejection of their bid was without proper consideration and that the selection of another bidder was in non-compliance with the tender terms. Citing legal precedents, including the case of Union of India v. Dinesh Engg. Corpn., the Petitioner argued for the need for a judicial review to ensure fairness and compliance with the law in tender processes. The court considered the arguments presented by the Petitioner, analyzed the documents, and referred to the judgment in Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking, emphasizing the need for restraint in judicial review of contractual matters.

Judgment:
After considering the submissions and legal principles, including the caution against interference in contractual matters unless arbitrariness or bias is evident, the court dismissed the writ petition. The court noted that the selected bidder had already been finalized, and there were no sufficient grounds to overturn the decision or interfere in the tender process. Citing the importance of public interest and the potential financial implications of disrupting the tender process, the court upheld the selection of the successful bidder and dismissed the petition, finding it lacked merit.