Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:17139-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1876 of 2025 Chadha Papers Limited is a Company Incorporated In Terms Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At Chadha Estate, Nainital Road, Tehsil- Bilaspur, Distt. Rampur, Uttar Pradesh- 244921 ... Petitioner versus Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam Depot, Central Warehousing Corporation (III), Near Urkura Railway Station, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001 ... Respondent For Petitioner For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal, Ms. Aditi Joshi and Mr. Biju Mattam, Advocates Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 15/04/2025 1. 2. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.04.19 15:16:54 +0530 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. Heard Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior advocate along with 2 / 5 Mr. Lakshyajit Singh Bagdwal, Ms. Aditi Joshi and Mr. Biju Mattam, learned Advocates for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate for the Respondent. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- i. Pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction (s) thereby quashing /setting-aside the impugned decision of the Respondent rejecting the Petitioner’s Bid at technical stage, as notified in the GEM Portal on 29.03.2025; ii. Pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) thereby quashing / setting-aside the Impugned Decision of the Respondent of opening the Financial Bid and notification of putting the purportedly qualified Financial Bids for Reverse Auction in a post haste manner, as notified in the GEM Portal on 31.03.2025; iii. Pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) thereby directing the respondent to include and consider the Petitioner’s Bid also in the evaluation and consideration of Financial Bid and for award of contract; iv. In case the relief sought in prayer (iii) is not possible due to any reasons including technical unfeasibility, pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) thereby quashing /setting-aside the Bid titled as ‘BID on GEM 3 / 5 Portal for SUPPLY OF 70 GSM & 80 GSM WATER MARKED (CGPPN****) REEL MAPLITHO PAPER Conforming to BIS Specification 1848 (Part I):2018 with latest amendments in SIZE 84 CM WIDTH REEL’; and v. Pass any further appropriate writ, order, direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The brief facts of the case are that On 12.01.2025, the Respondent issued a Bid, titled as 'BID on GEM Portal for SUPPLY OF 70 GSM & 80 GSM WATER MARKED (CGPPN****) REEL MAPLITHO PAPER Conforming to BIS Specification 1848 (Part I):2018 with latest amendments in SIZE 84 CM WIDTH REEL'. The aforesaid bid has been initiated by the Respondent for the purpose of procuring 8500 Metric Tonne (MT) of 70 GSM (Grams per Square Meter) and 500 MT of 80 GSM Water Marked Reel Mapiltho Paper. The Petitioner, being a manufacturer of the aforesaid Paper participated in the aforesaid bid initiated by the Respondent, however, the respondent on 29/03/2025 rejected the BID submitted by the petitioner. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the BID and uploaded all the requisite documents on the GEM Portal, including the CA Certificate certifying no income tax dues for F.Y. 2023-24 and documents relating to the past experience of the petitioner. He would next contend that the 4 / 5 petitioner have been supplying paper to various public entities across the Country for the last several years. He would next contend that the reason provided by the respondent for rejecting the petitioner’s bid that the Income Tax clearance certificate is not in proper manner is wrong because the petitioner has duly furnished a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant certifying that there are no income tax dues of the petitioner for the F.Y. 2023-24. Therefore, he would submit that the instant petition may be allowed and the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner’s Bid. 6. At the outset, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent has pointed out that the L-1, L-2 & L-3 in the tender process have already been declared. He would next contend that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite conditions of the tender because as per ATC Technical Information Form A 15 point the bidder has to furnish Income Tax Clearance certificate from the department or certified by the Chartered Accountant, however, the said certificate submitted by the petitioner shows that the Chartered Accountant has only given opinion that no demand has been raised by the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2023-24 up to the date of issuance of this certificate, whereas the Chartered Accountant was required to certify the said Income Tax Clearance Certificate. He would next contend that further the petitioner has not fulfilled the OEM related past performance criteria. Therefore, the bid of 5 / 5 the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 7. Considering the aforesaid submission made by learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent that the L-1, L-2 & L-3 in the tender process have already been declared and further considering the fact that the petitioner has also not made the L-1 , L-2 & L-3 as party-respondents in the present petition and has also not fulfilled the necessary conditions i.e. Information Form A 15 point wherein bidder has to furnish Income Tax Clearance certificate from the department or certified by the Chartered Accountant, however, the certificate submitted by the petitioner shows that the Chartered Accountant has only given opinion that no demand has been raised by the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2023-24 and has not certified the same. In such eventuality the respondent has rightly rejected the BID submitted by the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 8. Accordingly the instant writ petition is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu