Facts of the Case

This is Writ Petition (M/B) No. 193 of 2023 before the High Court of Uttarakhand, filed by Nandan Singh Chauhan against the State of Uttarakhand and others, seeking inclusion in the financial-bid-opening process for a tender to lift food-grains and sugar for the Food and Civil Supplies Department, and treatment of his e-challan fee as validly submitted. This is a government-tender dispute; GST features only as part of the tender fee amount (Rs.600 plus 18% GST) that bidders had to deposit through an e-treasury challan. The e-treasury portal was under maintenance from 15.07.2023 to 18.07.2023, spanning the last date for submission (17.07.2023), and the petitioner — who tried to pay but could not due to the outage, and raised his grievance the same day — was not accepted when he presented his challan on 18.07.2023 after the portal became functional, resulting in his bid not being technically qualified or opened.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the respondents' refusal to accept the petitioner's e-challan, submitted immediately after the portal's downtime ended, was arbitrary and unfair.
  2. Whether the Court should set aside the already-concluded tender award in light of this unfairness.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • He was unable to deposit the tender fee because the department's own e-treasury portal was non-functional from 15.07.2023 to 18.07.2023, and he had raised the issue with the respondents on the last date itself.
  • He presented the e-challan the moment the portal was restored, yet his bid was rejected and his financial bid never opened.

Respondent's Arguments

  • By the time of hearing, financial bids of technically qualified bidders had already been opened, the contract had been awarded, and the successful contractor had commenced performance.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found the respondents' action to be 'most unreasonable and unfair', since the portal was admittedly non-functional and it would have been fair to extend the submission deadline once the outage was known, especially since the petitioner had promptly registered his grievance.
  • The Court explicitly held that 'the petitioner has been wronged in the matter.'
  • However, since the contract had already been awarded and was under execution, the Court declined to interfere with the award at that stage.
  • The petitioner was left free to pursue his remedy for damages before the competent civil court, to be adjudicated on its own merits.

Important Clarification

Although the Court found the petitioner was wronged, it granted no direct relief on the tender itself — only liberty to separately claim damages. This is not a GST ruling; GST appears merely as the tax component of a Rs.600 tender fee. The practical lesson is procedural: courts are reluctant to unwind an awarded and part-executed government contract even where a bidder was unfairly excluded, preferring to relegate the aggrieved bidder to a damages claim.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction in tender matters

Decision – In Favour of

A mixed, largely symbolic outcome — the Court found in the petitioner's favour on the fact of unfair treatment, but declined to grant the substantive relief of inclusion in the bid process or setting aside the award, leaving him only the option of a separate damages claim.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Case No.: Writ Petition (M/B) No. 193 of 2023
Coram: Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Date: 2 August 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.