9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est. From the documents annexed to the petition, the registered offices of the petitioners appear to be in various locations in the State of West Bengal. It is not understood as to why all the 9 (nine) petitioners could have a particular address in the State of Assam. The address is also apparently wholly vague. This Court has noticed that even the affidavit accompanying the writ petition is not in accordance with law. The deponent claims to be the Director of the petitioner no. 1 and the authorized signatory of the petitioner s Company. However, there is no statement that the deponent has been authorized by the other petitioners. Though certain certificates have been annexed regarding such authorization, in absence of a statement in the affidavit, the same would not be sufficient. It is needles to state that in a writ petition, the affidavit is of paramount importance as there is no further scope of adducing evidence or cross-examination. Apart from the aspect of lacking in merits in the instant writ petition, the conduct of the petitioners in approaching a Court of Equity is not above board. The writ petition stands dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Profit and Loss Account duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. It also provides that for a newly established firm or the existing firms which have recently started to deal in the business of wheat, a provisional Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account accompanied by a limited review by the Auditor / Chartered Accountant should be furnished. It is only when such certificate cannot be furnished, the requirement of GST returns would arise. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to certain emails to demonstrate that it was within the understanding of the parties that GST certificate / registration is not mandatory. By referring to the emails dated 17.06.2023 issued by the petitioners and the reply dated 18.06.2023 by the FCI, it is submitted that so far as the documents for new registration under the FCI-M Junction is concerned, 3 nos. of documents would be necessary, namely, (i) undertaking on Rs.100 Stamp, (ii) CA Certified BS and PL and (iii) CA Certificate for as proof of wheat business. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to another email dated 21.06.2023 as per which one of the petitioners was asked to furnish CA Certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular State. It is submitted that Clause 6 of the NIT is not the subject matter of challenge. He has also informed that all the 9(nine) petitioners are empanelled in the State of West Bengal under the M. Junction and they are also registered under the GST in their respective States. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to a notification dated 17.07.2022 regarding the necessity of GST which covers the item in question i.e. Wheat . As regards the reference to the case of State of Jharkhand, it is submitted that in the RTI reply, it has been clarified that due to inadvertence, the GST was not insisted upon. He has, however, informed that the same cannot be a binding precedent as the same was done due to error and the case of Jharkhand would be dealt accordingly. On the submission regarding acceptance of offer, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the same was generated by the M. Junction and unless the Release Order is issued, it cannot be held to be a concluded contract. Regarding the objection taken that it is only the General Manager who has the power to cancel, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that under Clause 5, the General Manager would also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... multiple GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION under the same PAN, bidding would be allowed in a State against the GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION registered in that State/UT only. The maximum quantity that a buyer can bid is 100 MT against one PAN and GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION, of the State/UT concerned. (for eg, if a bidder is having the GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION from state of Haryana, he can bid for stocks from Haryana and not for stocks offered from any other State/Region of FCI. However, there is no bar in participating the bid by that bidder from other states if he is having different GST/TRADE TAX REGISTRATION in such other state/states.) 13. A reading of the same would clearly show that registration under the GST / Trade Tax is mandatory in nature and it has further been clarified that bidding would be allowed in a State against the GST registered in that State only. It has also been clarified that there would not be any bar in participating in the bid by the bidder of the other States if such bidder has a different GST in the said State. Admittedly, the aforesaid Clause 6 is not the subject matter of challenge. 14. It is an admitted case that none of the petitioners have GST registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not appear to suffer from any infirmity in view of the definition of General Manager as would appear from the definition in Clause 1 (v). 18. Apart from the terms and conditions of the tender being specific with regard to the requirement of the GST registration in the State, it is the settled that that the owner / author of the tender document would be the best person to interpret the same. In the case of Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 81, the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that emphasis to be given to the author of the tender document in interpreting any terms of the contract. For ready reference, the relevant extract is quoted hereinbelow- 39. Another aspect emphasised is that the author of the document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements. In the facts of the present case, the view, on interpreting the tender documents, of respondent No. 1 must prevail. Respondent No. 1 itself, appreciative of the wording of clause 20 and the format, has taken a considered view. Respondent No. 3 cannot compel its own interpretation of the contract to be thrust on respondent No. 1, or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain observations in the context of the nature of dispute which is before us. Normally parties would be governed by their contracts and the tender terms, and really no writ would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of Government and Public Sector Enterprises venturing into economic activities, this Court found it appropriate to build in certain checks and balances of fairness in procedure. It is this approach which has given rise to scrutiny of tenders in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It, however, appears that the window has been opened too wide as almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine. This in turn, affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector. This could hardly have been the objective in mind. An unnecessary, close scrutiny of minute details, contrary to the view of the tendering authority, makes awarding of contracts by Government and Public Sectors a cumbersome exercise, with long drawn out litigation at the threshold. The private sector is competing often in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irrational that the court can say: the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached ; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action. 22. There is another aspect of the matter which this Court has noticed. There are 9(nine) nos. of petitioners which have joined together in this writ petition. Though the causes of action may be similar, the same are independent. Without even going to the aspect as to whether a common petition would be maintainable or not, it is seen that Court Fee of only one petition has been paid. Further, in paragraph 1 of the petition, it has been disclosed that the petitioners are Private Limited Companies / Firm and interestingly, all of their addresses are identical which have been given as Ward No.10, Jaswanta Road, Pan Baz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
