SRI SAI TRAVELS Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the e- mail order dated 04.03.2017, passed by the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to open and consider the "Financial Bid" submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, the first respondent has invited e-tender for hiring of light commercial vehicles in Madurai - SSA in respect of three schedules Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The petitioner, who is a registered firm involved in the business of running a travel agency applied for consideration in response to the tender called for by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, he had submitted all the documents required for being considered for grant of the contract. The process of tender consisting of two stages. One is technical/qualification bid and the other is financial bid. According to the tender notification, there are certain mandatory requirements to be complied with. The said mandatory requirements as found in the tender document has been extracted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

(3.) While the petitioner firm is awaiting for favourable consideration claimed in the tender process, they were informed vide e-mail dated 04.03.2017 by the first respondent that their bid has been disqualified and rejected. According to the rejection order dated 04.03.2017, the production of registered partnership deed, which is one of the mandatory condition was not made available. Consequently, copies of PAN are not available for the registered partnership firm, instead the PAN standing in the name of the individual has been produced and the Service Tax registered certificate not bears PAN of registered partnership firm. Assailing the rejection order passed by the first respondent dated 04.03.2017, the petitioner is before this Court. According to the petitioner, the rejection of their bid cannot said to be valid in view of the fact that the petitioner firm has submitted a certificate of firm's registration dated 21.02.2017 along with the tender documents. As regards the issue of PAN not being available in the name of the firm, the petitioner's stand was that the entire partnership activities were run in the name of M.Prabu, one of the main partners of the petitioner's firm and partnership dated 21.02.2017 itself it has been clearly stated that all the transactions would be carried on in the name of the said Prabhu.