HELD v. The Chief Election RASHMI METALIKS LTD. v. KOLKATA METROPOLITAN 347 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

HELD: 1. So far as the rejection on the ground (i) of Tender of Notice is concerned,' this is~ue in its entirety E has become irrelevant for the reason that it does not feature as a reason for the impugn~d rejection. This ground should have been arti~ulated at the very inception itself, and now it is not forensically fair or permissible for the Authority or any of 'the Respondents to adopt this F ground for the first time in this second salvo of litigation by way of a side wind. The.impugned Judgment is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the' decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned Judgment itself, it must be set aside' on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision. [Para 12] [358- E-G] G H Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election RASHMI METALIKS LTD. v. KOLKATA METROPOLITAN 347 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Commissioner, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 851: 1978 (2) SCR A 272 - relied on.

#2. Clause (j) of the notice inviting E-tender is not an essential element or ingredient or concomitant of the subject NIT. In the course of hearing, the Income Tax B Return has been filed by the Appellant-company. The income tax was NIL, but substantial tax had been deposited. The Income Tax Return would have assumed the character of an essential term if one of the qualifications was either the gross income or the net income on which tax was attracted. In many cases this C is a salutary stipulation, since it is indicative of the commercial standing and reliability of the tendering entity. This feature being absent, We think that the filing of the latest Income Tax· Return was a collateral term, and accordingly the Tendering Authority ought to have D brought this discrepancy to the notice of the Appellant company and if even thereafter no rectification had been carried out, the position may have been appreciably different. It has been asserted on behalf of the Appellant company, and not denied by the Respondent-Authority, E that the financial bid of the Appellant-company is substantially lower than that of the others, and, therefore, pecuniarily preferable. The disqualification of the Appellant-company on the ground of it having failed to submit its latest Income Tax Return along with its bid is F not sufficient reason for disregarding its offer/bid. [Paras 13 and 14] [359-F-H; 360-A-D]