Case Law Details
Janakalyana Parisada Vs State of Odisha and Others (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court addressed a petition filed by Janakalyana Parisada challenging the disqualification of their bid in a tender process. The petitioner argued that the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was flawed because the tender was opened beyond the 180-day validity period stipulated in clause 2.6 of the NIT. They also contended that their disqualification, based on the cancellation of their GST registration, was misconceived, as they had submitted a valid GST registration number. The state, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, countered that the disqualification was justified because the petitioner’s GST registration had been cancelled, rendering them ineligible for the tender. The successful bidder, added as an opposite party, confirmed that an agreement had been executed after the work was awarded to them.
The court examined the validity of the tender process and the disqualification. Regarding the extension of the bid validity period, the court accepted the argument that the proposer could consent to extend the validity. In this case, the successful bidder had agreed to the extension. Concerning the GST registration cancellation, the court noted that the petitioner’s registration had been cancelled prior to September 20, 2024, as evidenced by FORM GST REG-17. The court interpreted the phrase “suo moto” in the disqualification letter as indicating that the taxing authority, a state entity, had cancelled the registration. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the disqualification of the bid.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, prayer of his client is for quashing of notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 19th January, 2024. Drawing attention to clause-2.6 on validity of proposals he submits, the tender was opened beyond 180 days. Without prejudice he submits further, his client was disqualified on reason given that ‘GST was cancelled suo moto’. A valid GST registration number was submitted by his client on the bid. As such, the reason is misconceived. He seeks interference.
2. Mrs. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner was disqualified on finding that his registration with the tax authority stood cancelled. As such he became ineligible to remain in consideration for award of the work under tender.
3. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of added opposite party no.3. He submits, his client was successful bidder and there has been agreement executed on award of the work to him.
4. Clause6 is reproduced below.
“The Proposal shall remain valid for 180 days after the date of bid opening. Any Proposal, which is valid for a shorter period, shall be rejected as non-responsive.”
5. On query made Mr. Panda submits, consent was sought by the employer for extension of the period. It could not have been Fresh NIT ought to have been issued. Mr. Rath submits, extension of the period of validity of proposals depends on the proposer. His client consented to extend validity of the proposal made.
6. We accept submission made on behalf of opposite party no.3 that validity of a proposal can be extended by the proposer. So far as cancellation of revenue registration of petitioner is concerned, it appears the registration was cancelled prior to 20th September, The cancellation is on reason given by FORM GST REG-17, disclosed by opposite party no.3 in his counter. We understand phrase ‘suo moto’ used in letter dated 20th September, 2024, giving information including disqualification of petitioner to be that his registration certificate was cancelled by the taxing authority. It being one of the arms of State, the phrase was used.
7. We do not find merit in the writ It is dismissed.
Author Bio
