M/S Vicky Caterers vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

The respondent No. 2 floated a Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘NIT’) dated 11.05.2022, inviting prospective tenderers for providing catering service at its institution. Terms and conditions of the NIT provides that Envelope A and Envelope B would have to be kept in Envelope C in sealed condition. In Envelope A, demand draft / pay order for Rs. 21,000/- was to be submitted as security deposit along with certain documents indicated therein including ISO/EPF/EST registration certificate. Clause (vi) of tender condition No. 6, which deals with Envelope A, lays down that in absence of documents referred to in (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), the bid will be automatically cancelled.

The present petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing WPC No. 2790 of 2022, contending that while the petitioner fulfilled all the requisite conditions of the NIT dated 11.05.2022 and despite the fact that the respondent No. 3 therein did not submit ISO/EPF/EST registration certificate as required by tender condition No. 6(v), contract had been awarded to the said respondent No.3.

While granting interim order to the effect that the respondent No. 2 shall not receive catering service from respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition, by the order dated 08.07.2022, it was provided that alternative arrangement may be made by the respondent No. 2, for providing catering service, till next date fixed.

Later on, by an order dated 08.08.2022, noticing that it is an admitted position that the respondent No. 3 had not submitted ISO/EPF/EST registration certificate, which was a requirement in terms of tender condition No. 6(v), this Court held that the respondent No. 3 could not have been selected for award of contract by relaxing a mandatory condition. Accordingly, order dated 01.06.2022, whereby, respondent No. 3 was selected for catering service, was set aside and respondent No. 2 was allowed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a legal notice dated 07.09.2022 to issue work order in his favour.

By letter dated 19.09.2022, the Principal of respondent No. 2, informed the counsel of the petitioner that a tender cannot be finalized with less than three eligible bidders and therefore, a fresh tender is required to be called. However, as there was insufficient funds and other hurdles and as some workshops had been cancelled, a fresh tender could not be floated. It was also indicated that in case of availability of adequate funds, a fresh tender would be floated, wherein, the petitioner would have opportunity to participate.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the aforesaid letter dated 19.09.2022 and for a direction to respondent No.2 to issue work order in favour of the petitioner or in the alternative, to issue a direction to initiate a fresh tender process.

Mr. N. Naha Roy submits that the interim management as was continued during the pendency of the writ petition, is being continued by the respondent No. 2 and that the same is impermissible.

Though such a contention is made, the same is, evidently, not a subject matter of this case and that apart, the entity, who is allowed to continue, is also not made party respondent in this proceedings.

In view of the stand taken by the respondent No. 2 that issuance of fresh tender for providing catering service is not viable due to present financial condition of the respondent No. 2, we are of the opinion that having regard to the relief prayed for as well as frame of the writ petition, no case is made out for invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.