Facts of the Case

The petitioners, contractors experienced in Water Conservation Department works, challenged an essential tender condition in a Zilla Parishad e-tender notice dated 19.05.2023 inviting bids for 32 items of K.T. Weir/Kolhapuri Bandhara construction. The challenged clause required bidders to submit, among other documents, a valid GST registration certificate along with proof of GST returns filed up to 2021-22, and mandated that the contractor (or an authorised representative) conduct a joint site inspection with the Sub-Divisional Water Conservation Officer within three days of the tender period, between fixed office hours, and upload photographs with GPS coordinates of the site — failing which the bid would be rejected as invalid.

The petitioners, who had not submitted a bid, contended the condition was arbitrary, designed to favour particular bidders, and practically impossible given only twelve officers were available across four divisions to accompany contractors for the mandated inspections. The respondents defended the condition as necessary given the scale of works (42 K.T. Weirs and 32 Nala Bandhs) and the need to verify site conditions, material availability and transport logistics in advance.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether petitioners who did not submit a bid had the locus to challenge the tender condition.
  2. Whether the impugned condition — GST/tax registration proof plus a time-bound joint site inspection — was arbitrary, mala fide, or designed to favour particular bidders.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The tender condition, in particular the three-day joint-inspection requirement with only twelve available officers across four divisions, was arbitrary and practically impossible to comply with.
  • The condition was designed to eliminate competent bidders like the petitioners and to favour particular contractors, potentially enabling corruption.
  • The condition was contrary to a Government Resolution dated 08.04.2021 and ought to have allowed at least five days for site inspection.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Relying on Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, and Mahalaxmi Engineering Works v. Bangalore Electric Supply Co., it was contended that petitioners who never submitted a bid lacked the locus to maintain the writ petition.
  • 239 bidders had responded to the tender notice without raising any objection to its terms; the petitioners' apprehensions were imaginary.
  • Jio-tagged site inspection was necessary given the scale and urgency of the works, to verify material availability, transport logistics and avoid delay; the three-day window was adequate considering the distances involved.

Court Order / Findings

  • Applying Ramanna Dayaram Shetty, the Court held that a bidder denied equal opportunity to compete has locus to challenge a tender condition even without submitting a bid, and examined the matter on merits rather than non-suiting the petitioners on a technicality.
  • On merits, applying the settled principles in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) and related Supreme Court authority, the Court held that courts exercise very limited interference in matters of tender conditions absent malice or misuse of statutory power.
  • The Court found no material to demonstrate mala fides or a design to favour particular contractors, and accepted the respondents' explanation that the conditions were practicable given the circumstances.
  • The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

GST registration proof is a standard, unremarkable eligibility document in government tenders; this case is not about any GST dispute at all. It is a reminder that courts give tendering authorities considerable latitude in designing eligibility and verification conditions, and will only intervene where mala fides or arbitrariness is affirmatively demonstrated — not merely alleged.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 and Article 226
  • General tender/procurement principles — no specific GST-law provision was at issue

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the respondents (the Zilla Parishad and other authorities) — the writ petition challenging the tender condition was dismissed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6079 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme
  • Date of Order: 07.09.2023

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.