Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the allotment of Shop No. 6 in the Regulated Market Committee Building, Ramanathapuram. The second respondent had issued a tender notification dated 18.09.2022 inviting applications for leasing out 21 commercial shops. The petitioner was one of the applicants.

The shop was ultimately allotted to the fifth respondent. The petitioner alleged that the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder and that the tender process had been manipulated to favour her. The petitioner therefore sought quashing of the allotment list dated 30.09.2022 and requested the Court to direct the authorities to allot Shop No. 6 to him.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the allotment of Shop No. 6 in favour of the fifth respondent was arbitrary or vitiated by irregularities.
  2. Whether the fifth respondent satisfied the tender condition relating to one-year trading experience.
  3. Whether GST registration and GST return filings could establish the required trading experience.
  4. Whether the High Court should interfere with the tender allotment under Article 226 of the Constitution.

 

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder.
  • It was alleged that the tender process had been manipulated to ensure allotment in favour of the fifth respondent.
  • The petitioner further argued that the fifth respondent did not possess the mandatory one-year trading experience prescribed under the tender conditions.
  • Accordingly, the petitioner sought cancellation of the allotment and allotment of the shop in his favour.

 

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents produced the original tender records before the High Court.
  • It was submitted that the application of the fifth respondent was genuine and there were no suspicious circumstances in the tender process.
  • The fifth respondent demonstrated that she had obtained GST registration on 08.06.2021 and had also filed GST returns for May 2022.
  • It was argued that the GST registration and regular GST compliance clearly established that she possessed the required one-year trading experience and had no GST arrears.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Madras High Court examined the original records produced by the authorities and found no suspicious circumstances in the tender process.

The Court observed that:

  • The application submitted by the fifth respondent was genuine.
  • The fifth respondent's GST registration from 08.06.2021 and filing of GST returns established that she had the requisite one-year experience as a trader.
  • The GST compliance also demonstrated that she had discharged her GST liabilities without any arrears.
  • Since no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity was found in the allotment process, there was no ground for interference under Article 226.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

 

Important Clarification

  • GST registration and regular GST return filings can serve as credible evidence of trading experience where the tender conditions require proof of business experience.
  • Mere allegations of favouritism or manipulation are insufficient unless supported by substantive evidence.
  • Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 will not interfere in tender matters where the official records establish transparency and compliance with tender conditions.
  • Production of original records by the authority carries significant evidentiary value in judicial review of tender decisions.

Sections / Provisions Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Tender Conditions relating to allotment of shops in Regulated Market Committee
  • GST Registration and GST Return Compliance as evidence of trading experience


Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782970975_93compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.