Court Upholds Bid Rejection Due to Missing GST Certificate

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the petitioner's bid for not submitting a GST registration certificate and accepting the bids of the 3rd and 4th respondents. The court found no arbitrariness in the decisions, emphasizing judicial restraint in contractual matters and the administrative bodies' freedom in making reasonable and unbiased contract decisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of the petitioner's bid due to non-submission of GST registration certificate.
2. Acceptance of the 3rd respondent's bid despite alleged non-compliance with consortium requirements.
3. Acceptance of the 4th respondent's bid despite alleged lack of required experience.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the petitioner's bid due to non-submission of GST registration certificate:
The petitioner contended that their bid should not have been rejected for not furnishing a GST registration certificate since they were exempt from registering under the GST Act due to their involvement in healthcare services, as per notification No.9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017. The 2nd respondent argued that the GST registration certificate was a mandatory requirement for the technical bid. The court noted that the petitioner’s primary activity might be exempt from GST, but the tender required the provision of drugs and other goods not exempt from GST. Consequently, the petitioner needed to be registered under the GST Act. The court upheld the 2nd respondent's decision, stating that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was not arbitrary.

2. Acceptance of the 3rd respondent's bid despite alleged non-compliance with consortium requirements:
The petitioner argued that the 3rd respondent, part of a consortium, submitted the bid instead of the lead partner, Sri Ramachandra Children and Dental Hospital, which was against the tender requirements. The 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent countered that the tender documents did not stipulate that only the lead member must submit the bid. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that while the lead member had to provide certain details and assurances, it did not mean that only the lead member could submit the bid. Therefore, the acceptance of the 3rd respondent's bid was not deemed arbitrary.

3. Acceptance of the 4th respondent's bid despite alleged lack of required experience:
The petitioner claimed that the 4th respondent did not meet the minimum three years of experience required for the technical bid. The 4th respondent provided certificates from the NRI Academy of Sciences and the medical officer of the area hospital Seethampeta, demonstrating over three years of experience in maintaining SNCUs. The petitioner argued that this experience was not in accordance with the contract between NRI Academy of Sciences and the State of A.P., but failed to provide evidence. The court found that the certificates attested to the 4th respondent’s experience and capacity to execute the contract, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim of arbitrariness.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no arbitrariness in the 2nd respondent’s actions regarding the rejection of the petitioner's bid and the acceptance of the 3rd and 4th respondents' bids. The court emphasized the principles of judicial restraint in contractual matters and the necessity for administrative bodies to have freedom in contract decisions, provided they act reasonably and without bias.

---