Mandatory State GST registration under tender conditions upheld; bid cancellation for non-compliance was sustained in writ review.

Under the tender conditions, GST registration in the concerned State was mandatory for eligibility, and participation was confined to bidders registered in that State or Union Territory. As the petitioners had no GST registration in Assam, their bids were correctly cancelled despite their registration elsewhere and their empanelment on the e-platform. The Court held that the tender author was entitled to construe the eligibility , that a claim based on different treatment in another State could not succeed because there is no negative equality, and that no concluded contract arose since the cancellation occurred before any release order. Interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether GST registration in the State concerned was mandatory under the tender conditions and whether cancellation of the bids for want of such registration was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The tender condition governing participation required bidding against the GST or trade tax registration of the relevant State or Union Territory, and expressly restricted participation to the State where such registration existed. The petitioners admittedly had no GST registration in Assam, though they were registered in other States. Mere empanelment on the e-platform did not override the tender eligibility requirements, and the author of the tender document was entitled to interpret those requirements. The challenge based on a different treatment in another State did not assist the petitioners, as there is no concept of negative equality. The Court also found that the cancellation occurred before issuance of a release order, so no concluded contract was shown to exist.

Conclusion: The GST requirement was mandatory, the cancellation of the bids was valid, and no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out.

---