Dealer registration after proprietor's death cannot support a tender bid; legal heirs cannot claim amendment absent statutory permission.

A tender bidder cannot satisfy a requirement for valid dealer registration and tax clearance by producing a certificate standing in the name of a deceased proprietor, because a proprietorship registration does not continue or devolve on death unless the statute so provides. A legal heir of the deceased proprietor has no independent right to seek amendment of a registration certificate that has ceased to operate. On that basis, a bid founded on an invalid registration and tax clearance was treated as non-compliant, and cancellation of the agreement with arrangement of supply through the next eligible bidder was considered justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's tender application accompanied by the VAT clearance certificate was valid; (ii) whether the registration certificate of a proprietorship concern continues after the death of the proprietor; (iii) whether the legal heir of a deceased proprietor can seek amendment of the deceased proprietor's registration certificate; and (iv) whether cancellation of the petitioner's agreement and award of contract to another bidder was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's tender application accompanied by the VAT clearance certificate was valid.

Analysis: The tender conditions required a valid registration and tax clearance certificate. The certificate produced with the tender stood in the name of the deceased proprietor and was not a valid certificate in the petitioner's own name. Since the petitioner was not shown to be a registered dealer in his own right, the tender submission was based on misrepresentation of a material fact.

Conclusion: The tender application was not valid and could not support award of the contract in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the registration certificate of a proprietorship concern continues after the death of the proprietor.

Analysis: In the case of a proprietorship concern, the registration stands in the name of the proprietor. On the proprietor's death, the registration does not survive as a transferable or inheritable certificate in favour of the legal heirs. Rule 30 contemplated cancellation of the certificate on death of the proprietor.

Conclusion: The registration certificate did not remain in force after the death of the proprietor.

Issue (iii): Whether the legal heir of a deceased proprietor can seek amendment of the deceased proprietor's registration certificate.

Analysis: Amendment under section 32 was available to a dealer registered under the Act. The petitioner, not being a registered dealer in his own right, could not seek amendment of a certificate that had ceased to operate on the death of the proprietor. The deeming plea based on delay in disposal of the amendment request was rejected.

Conclusion: The legal heir had no right to seek amendment of the deceased proprietor's registration certificate.

Issue (iv): Whether cancellation of the petitioner's agreement and award of contract to another bidder was justified.

Analysis: As the petitioner failed to furnish a valid tax clearance certificate and was not a registered dealer, the contract was obtained on an invalid foundation. In those circumstances, termination of the petitioner's agreement and negotiation with the next eligible bidder for urgent supply requirements was held to be justified.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the petitioner's agreement and the fresh arrangement with the other bidder were justified.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner did not satisfy the statutory and tender requirements for a valid bid and had no enforceable registration basis after the death of the original proprietor.

Ratio Decidendi: A tender condition requiring valid dealer registration and tax clearance cannot be satisfied by a certificate standing in the name of a deceased proprietor, and a legal heir cannot claim amendment or continuation of that registration unless the statute expressly permits it.

---