Facts of the Case

This case concerns tender eligibility and Article 14 of the Constitution, not GST law. M/s Radhakrushna Publications, Bhubaneswar, bid for a tender floated on 13.10.2022 by the Director, Text Book Production and Marketing, Odisha, for printing and binding of nationalised text books for the 2023-24 academic session. The tender required (under Clause 2/Clause 11(l)) that bidders furnish a three-phase industrial electricity connection bill, or 'any other supporting documents of electric connection'. The petitioner used premises taken on rent from M/s Radhakrushna Publications Pvt. Ltd. (the proprietor's husband's company), which held the electricity connection, and uploaded GST tax invoices issued under the CGST/SGST Act for electricity charges billed to that company, along with the rent agreement. Despite this, the petitioner's technical bid was rejected on the stated ground that it had not uploaded an electricity bill in its own name or in the name of the firm from which it borrowed power. Two similarly placed bidders — one who also relied on someone else's connection and one whose connection was later found faulty — were nonetheless accepted after representations. The petitioner's own representation was rejected, and it approached the High Court under Articles 226/227.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner had, in substance, complied with the tender requirement to furnish 'three phase industrial electricity connection bill or any other supporting documents of electric connection'.
  2. Whether rejecting the petitioner's bid while accepting similarly placed bidders (M/s Amarjyoti Printers and M/s Divine Printers) amounted to discrimination under Article 14.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had uploaded the electricity supply bill and GST tax invoices (under the CGST/SGST/UTGST Acts) in the name of its landlord company, M/s Radhakrushna Publications Pvt. Ltd., along with the rent agreement showing it was liable to pay the proportionate electricity dues.
  • These documents fell squarely within the tender's own alternative — 'any other supporting documents of electric connection' — and ought to have been accepted.
  • Two other bidders in an identical position (relying on someone else's electricity connection, or with a defective connection) were given the benefit of consideration after representation, while the petitioner alone was denied parity, violating Article 14.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner had not uploaded any electricity bill in its own name or in the name of the firm from which it claimed to borrow power, as required by Clause 2 read with Clause 11(l) of the tender documents.
  • M/s Amarjyoti Printers' case was different because it had uploaded its own electricity bill and only a subsequent physical-verification complaint arose, which was resolved on facts; M/s Divine Printers had properly uploaded its landlord's bill, unlike the petitioner.
  • Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was neither illegal nor discriminatory.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that Clause 11(l)'s use of the word 'or' meant a bidder needed to furnish either a three-phase bill in its own name or any other supporting document evidencing the electricity connection — not necessarily a bill in its own name.
  • The GST tax invoices for electricity charges (issued under the CGST/SGST framework in the landlord company's name) together with the rent agreement were held to be valid 'other supporting documents' satisfying the tender requirement.
  • The rejection of the petitioner's technical bid, while accepting the case of a similarly placed bidder (Amarjyoti Printers) after representation, was held arbitrary, unreasoned, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
  • The rejection order (Annexure-8) and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation (Annexure-11) were quashed, with a direction to the authorities to treat the petitioner's technical bid as valid and proceed further in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

Readers should not mistake this for a ruling on GST law. The Court did not interpret or apply any provision of the CGST/SGST Acts — the GST tax invoice mattered here purely as documentary proof of an electricity connection in a tender-eligibility dispute. The useful, if narrow, practical takeaway is that a GST invoice raised on a landlord/group company can be accepted as valid supporting proof of a utility connection where the tender conditions permit 'any other supporting document'.

Sections Involved

  • Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction for quashing the tender rejection.
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India — equality/non-discrimination, the substantive ground of decision.
  • Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India — right to carry on business/profession.
  • GST tax invoices under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding Odisha State GST Act, 2017 were referred to only as documentary evidence, without any substantive GST law adjudication.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner, M/s Radhakrushna Publications — the technical bid rejection was quashed and the authorities were directed to reconsider the bid as valid, on tender-eligibility and Article 14 grounds.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 6842 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Dr Justice B.R. Sarangi and Hon'ble Mr Justice Murahari Sri Raman
Date of Hearing / Judgment: 25 August 2023 / 31 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.