TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby impugning the communication/notice dated 25.9.2023, by which petitioner alongwith two other lowest bidders were invited for negotiations by tendering authority i.e. Respondent no.4. However, during pendency of this petition, respondent no.3 passed further order dated 17/20.11.2023, disqualifying the petitioner, although he was already declared qualified and L-1 bidder. The petitioner has incorporated challenge to said communication by amending the writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that, he is a reputed contractor and since year 2021 undertakes the work of water supply through Tankers under various contracts. Respondent No.3 - District Collector, Beed had floated E-Tender ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing GST number is non-essential. Further, another bidders, who had not submitted GST number, was also declared qualified in the Tender process. 4. Respondent nos.3 filed affidavit-in-reply and justified disqualification of the petitioner. It is pointed out that in response to the complaint received from Mr. Subhash Bapmare, scrutiny of the Tender submitted by the Petitioner was made and it was noticed that the Petitioner has failed to submit GST clearance certificate issued by the Competent Authority for the year 2022-2023. The aforesaid fact has been confirmed from the office of Assistant State Tax Commissioner (Administration), Goods and Service Tax Office, Beed. The communication received from the said office makes it clear that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner was found the lowest bidder (L-1), wherein he had quoted 43% below the estimated costs, malafidely, he is declared as disqualified with intention to accommodate other bidders. Ms. Talekar, further submits that respondent no.3 had invited other two lower bidders for negotiations after opening of Financial Bid. The petitioner had objected the same. Being enraged by such action on the part of the petitioner and with an object to accommodate other bidders, impugned order of disqualification is passed, which is arbitrary and tainted with malafides. 6. The learned AGP as well as the learned advocate appearing for the intervenor justified the impugned orders. They would submit that, condition no.11 under tender notice (page 28) st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apparently, the petitioner had submitted his bid in response to the Tender Notice dated 13.7.2023. The envelope containing Technical qualifications of all the bidders were opened and scrutinized by the Tendering Authority. The petitioner alongwith other bidders were declared qualified in Technical Evaluation. Report of technical evaluation is signed by the all members of the Technical Evaluation Committee. Eventually, Financial bids of Technically qualified bidders were opened. The petitioner found to be the lowest bidder. Petitioner was expecting the work order and represented respondent no.3 for execution of the agreement. At this stage, respondent no.4 issued a communication addressed to three lowest bidders i.e. L-1, L-2 and L-3 inviti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell before the Tendering Authority since the Petitioner had not submitted the GST returns or the certificate of clearance. However, the Committee of 11 Class-1 officers, on scrutiny of the technical bids, declared the petitioner as qualified. Pertinently, one more bidder, who has not submitted GST returns, is also declared as qualified, although technical evaluation report takes special note of such non-compliance, disqualification was not ordered on that count. 10. The aforesaid documents clearly depicts that condition no.11 under the tender was waived by the Tendering Authority. Pertinently, there is a reason for such waiver. As can be seen from the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, (Department of Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488 so also in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489. 12. Once we conclude that there was deliberate/thoughtful waiver of the condition no.11 by the Tendering Authority, by which the petitioner was declared as qualified, although he was not holding GST registration or clearance certificate, it is difficult to justify the subsequent order disqualifying petitioner relying upon the same condition. We observe that when petitioner surfaced as lowest bidder, respondent no.3 issued a communication calling upon the petitioner and other two bidders for negotiations, instead issuing the work order in favour petitioner being L-1. Further, when the petitio....