The authorities have rightly rejected bid of petitioner being non-compliant. The petition being bereft of merit is required to be dismissed.
Writ petition— This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the decision of the respondent authorities, whereby her technical bid was rejected and respondent No.2 was found to be technically compliant.
The petitioner submits that rejection of her technical bid for want of GST number was illegal, for, in fact, the petitioner was/is exempted from obtaining the GST number. Therefore, in such a situation, the decision of the authorities to hold the petitioner ineligible was erroneous and lacked application of mind.
On the contrary, he submits that respondent No.2, though submitted the GST number, but that was incorrect. Thus, his bid could not have been accepted.
Held that— once the petitioner had accepted all the terms and conditions of the tender and was well aware of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the GST number, now she cannot be permitted to say that she was not required to do so. In such a situation, it can be safely concluded that the authorities have rightly rejected her technical bid, being non-compliant. On the other hand, respondent No.2 had furnished the GST number and was the only tenderer remaining in the fray, and therefore, declared as technically compliant.
The authorities have rightly rejected bid of petitioner being non-compliant. The petition being bereft of merit is required to be dismissed.
Writ petition— This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the decision of the respondent authorities, whereby her technical bid was rejected and respondent No.2 was found to be technically compliant.
The petitioner submits that rejection of her technical bid for want of GST number was illegal, for, in fact, the petitioner was/is exempted from obtaining the GST number. Therefore, in such a situation, the decision of the authorities to hold the petitioner ineligible was erroneous and lacked application of mind.
On the contrary, he submits that respondent No.2, though submitted the GST number, but that was incorrect. Thus, his bid could not have been accepted.
Held that— once the petitioner had accepted all the terms and conditions of the tender and was well aware of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the GST number, now she cannot be permitted to say that she was not required to do so. In such a situation, it can be safely concluded that the authorities have rightly rejected her technical bid, being non-compliant. On the other hand, respondent No.2 had furnished the GST number and was the only tenderer remaining in the fray, and therefore, declared as technically compliant.