Facts of the Case

The Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation (OSCSC), Nuapada, invited tenders on 26.04.2023 for appointment of Handling Contractors for foodgrain handling at rice-receiving centres, with bids due by 15.05.2023. Three bidders participated, including petitioner Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, whose technical bid was found compliant. During scrutiny (proceedings dated 16.05.2023), it emerged that Opposite Party No.5 had not submitted his income tax return for AY 2020-21 through the e-tender portal (though he submitted it offline afterward, which was impermissible), and Opposite Party No.6 had submitted a bank capability certificate addressed to a different district office (Sambalpur, not Nuapada) and not in the prescribed format. Despite these discrepancies, the tender committee, in a decision recorded on 25.05.2023 (nine days after the technical bids were opened), qualified both Opposite Parties No.5 and 6 for the financial bid stage. The petitioner challenged this qualification.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the tender committee could permit bidders to proceed to the financial-bid stage despite documented non-compliance with mandatory checklist requirements (income tax returns and bank capability certificate in the prescribed format).
  2. The scope of judicial review over a public-sector tender's technical evaluation.
  3. Whether, as a resulting single bidder, the petitioner could claim the contract in his own favour.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The tender's own terms (Clause 2(x), Clause 4, and the Appendix-II checklist) made submission of a bank capability certificate in the prescribed format and three years' income tax returns (along with PAN and GST registration certificate) mandatory prerequisites, non-compliance with which required automatic disqualification.
  • The tender committee's decision to overlook these defects for Opposite Parties No.5 and 6 was arbitrary and in violation of the tender's own conditions, and the petitioner's bid should be accepted instead.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Under Clause 14 of the tender notice, minor deficiencies could be rectified even at the agreement-execution stage, and the technical evaluation committee had validly exercised this power to overlook trivial defects.
  • Having also participated in the price bid without success, the petitioner could not now challenge the process as not maintainable.

Court Order / Findings

  • Examining the checklist requirements in detail, the Court held that Opposite Parties No.5 and 6 had failed mandatory conditions (Sl. Nos. 2 and 11 of Appendix-II) and stood disqualified under the tender's own terms; Clause 14 (cited by the Corporation) did not empower the committee to ignore mandatory technical disqualifications at the evaluation stage itself.
  • Citing settled Supreme Court authority (Tata Cellular, Air India v. Cochin International Airport, Jagdish Mandal, Sterling Computers) on the limited scope of judicial review over tenders, the Court nonetheless found the decision-making process here was vitiated by clear illegality in ignoring mandatory conditions.
  • Since the petitioner remained the sole compliant bidder, and the law does not permit a contract to be awarded to a single bidder merely because he matches the price, the Court quashed the entire tender process and directed OSCSC to float a fresh tender expeditiously, rather than awarding the contract to the petitioner.

Important Clarification

This is a public-procurement/tender-law ruling; it does not decide any GST question — the checklist's requirement of a "GST Registration Certificate" was simply one document bidders needed to furnish, alongside PAN and income tax returns, and this order does not examine any dispute about GST compliance itself.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India — Article 226, judicial review of tender decisions
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — GST registration certificate cited only as one of several eligibility documents required by the tender

Decision – In Favour of

Petitioner, in part (the flawed tender process was quashed and a fresh tender ordered) — though the petitioner did not get the contract awarded to himself.

Case Details

  • Court: Orissa High Court at Cuttack
  • Case: W.P.(C) No.18325 of 2023
  • Coram: Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Mr. Justice M.S. Raman
  • Date: 21.06.2023

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.