Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Supreme Court
State Exchequer Could Have Benefited By Accepting Tender: Supreme Court Sets Aside Orissa High Court Order Directing Fresh Issuance Of Sand Quarry Tender
|The challenge in the appeals before the Supreme Court was made against the order whereby the Orissa High Court directed for fresh tender in respect of Karangadihi Sand Quarry.
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Orissa High Court directing the issuance of a fresh Tender in respect of Karangadihi Sand Quarry and observed that there was no reason for the revenue authorities to turn down the selected bid as the state exchequer could have been benefitted by accepting the tender.
The challenge in the appeals before the Apex Court was made to the order whereby the Orissa High Court directed for fresh tender in respect of Karangadihi Sand Quarry.
The Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasised, “Another aspect which is also worth consideration is the bid quoted by the petitioner was much more than the respondent no.4 and by way of accepting the tender of the petitioner the state exchequer could have been benefitted and there was no reason for the revenue authorities i.e., the Tahasildar and the Sub-Collector to turn down the bid of the petitioner. However by accepting the bid of respondent no.4 there could have been a loss to the public ex-chequer.”
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2022 when the Tahasildar, Banspal (second Respondent) floated an auction notice for long-term lease of Karangadihi Stone Quarry for a period of five years, i.e., from the financial year 2022-23 to 2026-27. After a scrutiny of the documents, it was found by the Tahsildar that the petitioner herein had quoted the highest additional charge at the rate of Rs 589, and the fourth respondent had quoted the second highest additional charge at the rate of Rs 221.
Consequently, the petitioner was selected and declared as the successful bidder. The Sub Collector (third Respondent) vide its order dismissed the appeal filed by the fourth respondent challenging the Tehsildar’s order. Whent the matter reached the High Court, the Tahasildar’s order was quashed and a direction for issuance of fresh tender was passed. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The controversy in these petitions revolved around the conditions referred to in the tender notice concerning submission of the income tax return of the previous financial year or a bank guarantee of 18 months' validity. The second condition was furnishing a certificate/letter from the concerned GST Jurisdictional Officer stating that the bidder had no GST dues pending.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents along with his income tax return. The second condition in respect of furnishing certificate/letter from the concerned GST Jurisdictional Officer that no GST dues are pending was also complied with by the petitioner. Accordingly, the certificate was issued with the statement that the certificate was not valid in case any liability arises for the said period and at the time of scrutiny of details. The Tahasildar, on his satisfaction that the petitioner had complied with both conditions, declared him a successful bidder.
The Petitioner had submitted his income-tax returns of the year 2020-21 which showed that the petitioner had the financial capability to participate in the bidding process, therefore, the income tax return as submitted by the petitioner was sufficient to fulfil the purpose of such condition/requirement of auction notice in assessing the petitioner’s financial capability. However, the fourth respondent had complied with only one condition and failed to comply with the other prerequisite in the form of GST certificate.
“Thus, considering the material placed on record, we are of the clear opinion, that the submissions made on behalf of respondent no.4 is not sustainable for the simple reason that the Tahasildar was satisfied on the aspect that the petitioner had complied with both the conditions and there was no need for the him to further wait for some approval and delay the process”, it said.
In light of such circumstances, the Bench came to the conclusion that the decision of the revenue authorities namely the Tahasildar and the Sub-Collector were just, and the High Court committed gross error in allowing the petition. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title: M/S Sri Venkateswara Constructions v. State of Odisha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 580)