Case: Rashmi Metaliks Ltd.  Vs. Kolkata Metrop. Dev. Auth.

The two terms of the subject Invitation to Tender which are germane to the case in hand are clauses (i) and (j) thereof, which read thus –?(i) A declaration in the form of Affidavit in a non judicial stamp paper should be submitted stating clearly that the applicant is not barred/delisted/blacklisted by any Government Department/ Government Undertaking/ Statutory Body/ Municipality and of the like Government Bodies in DI Pipe-supply tender during last five years and if any such incident is found at any point of time, the tender will be cancelled summarily without assigning any reason whatsoever.  (j) Valid PAN No., VAT No., Copy of acknowledgement of latest Income Tax Return and Professional Tax Return.?3. It must immediately be clarified that so far as clause (i) is concerned, the learned Single Judge had thought it unnecessary to analyse its applicability and relevance, having come to the conclusion that a violation of clause (j) had been committed by the Appellant-company inasmuch as it had failed to file its latest Income Tax Return along with its bid. This position has continued to obtain even before the Division Bench as will be palpably clear from a perusal of the impugned judgment. The Division Bench, despite noting clause (j), has concerned itself only with the legal implications flowing from the alleged non-compliance of clause (i). The Division Bench has predicated its decision on W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451  and has extracted, as we shall also do, the following paragraphs therefrom –?23. The mistakes/errors in question, it is stated, are unintentional and occurred due to the fault of computer termed as a ?repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure?. It is difficult to accept this contention. A mistake may be unilateral or mutual but it is always unintentional. If it is intentional it ceases to be a mistake. Here the mistakes may be unintentional but it was not beyond the control of Respondents 1 to 4 to correct the same before submission of the bid. Had they been vigilant in checking the bid documents before their submission, the mistakes would have been avoided. Further, correction of such mistakes after one-and-a-half months of opening of the bids will also be violative of clauses 24.1, 24.3 and 29.1 of the ITB.  24. The controversy in this case has arisen at the threshold. It cannot be disputed that this is an international competitive bidding which postulates keen competition and high efficiency. The bidders have or should have assistance of technical experts. The degree of care required in such a bidding is greater than in ordinary local bids for small works. It is essential to maintain the sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid and also award of a contract. The appellant, Respondents 1 to 4 and Respondents 10 and 11 are all bound by the ITB which should be complied with scrupulously. In a work of this nature and magnitude where bidders who fulfil prequalification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and our constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under the ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In our view such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest.?4. The impugned judgment states that clause (j) cannot be viewed as a non-essential term and, therefore, should have been corrected before the submission of the tender. This seems to us to be chronologically or sequentially impossible; what was obviously meant was that failure to adhere to this term would render the bid non-compliant and, therefore, beyond the pale of consideration in toto. The Division Bench also opined that the Appellant-company could not be granted the indulgence to correct this error, as ‘such facility was not available to other bidders.? In saying so, the Division Bench, it appears to us, has diluted its view that clause (j) is altogether inviolable.

Court's reasoning:
12. So far as the first point is concerned, it needs to be dealt with short shrift for the reason that the Courts below have not thought it relevant for discussion, having, in their wisdom, considered it sufficient to non-suit the Appellant-company for its failure on the second count. It has, however, been explained by Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-company that at the material time there was no blacklisting or delisting of the Appellant-company and that in those circumstances it was not relevant to make any disclosure in this regard. The very fact that the Tendering Authority, in terms of its communication dated 22nd July 2013 had not adverted to this ground at all, lends credence to the contention that a valid argument had been proffered had this ground been raised. Regardless of the weight, pithiness or sufficiency of the explanation given by the Appellant-company in this regard, this issue in its entirety has become irrelevant for our cogitation for the reason that it does not feature as a reason for the impugned rejection. This ground should have been articulated 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 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 decision13. So far as clause (j) of the detailed notice inviting E-tender No.01/KMDA/MAT/CE/2013-2014 dated 10.5.2013 emanating from the office of the Chief Engineer is concerned, it seems to us that contrary to the conclusion in the impugned judgment, the clause is not an essential element or ingredient or concomitant of the subject NIT. In the course of hearing, the Income Tax Return has been filed by the Appellant-company and scrutinized by us. For the Assessment Year 2011-2012, the gross income of the Appellant-company was Rs.15,34,05,627, although, for the succeeding Assessment Year 2012-2013, the income tax was NIL, but substantial tax had been deposited. We think that 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 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 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 learned counsel for the Respondent-Authority, that the financial bid of the Appellant-company is substantially lower than that of the others, and, therefore, pecuniarily preferable.