Admittedly, the tender process has commenced in March, 2012 and the respondent No.3, though not filed the return, however, filed the VAT clearance certificate for the period from December, 2010 to December, 2011 which was ratified by the VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department. In the absence of any indication in the details of documents to be furnished that VAT clearance Certificate for the year 2010-11 should be filed, it cannot be said that VAT clearance certificate dated 21.1.2011 together with VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012 are not valid for the purpose of satisfying the condition of tender notification. At the time of entering into contract, it would also be open for the authorities to insist for furnishing copy of return filed under VAT before the Commercial Taxes Department. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No.3 is not eligible to be considered for award of contract for non filing of VAT return. -As held by the Supreme Court in TATA CELLUR v. UNION OF INDIA3 the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in matters dealing with tender process is very limited. Review is permissible only in cases where it was established there was unreasonableness, arbitrariness and the decision making process is affected by bias or actuated by mala fides or favouritism. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that tender process has been actuated by mala fides or there was unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the decision making process. Therefore, no relief can be granted in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE            

Writ Appeal 1368 of 2012

11-12-2012

M/S.PBR SELECT INFRA PROJECTS PLOT NO.22, 3RD FLOOR,SELECT HOUSE, NAGARJUNA                    
HILLS,PUNJAGUTTA,HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.P.BHASKAR REDDY                      

THE COMMISSIONER OF TENDERS BRK BHAVAN,HYDERABAD AND OTHERS                    

Counsel for the appellant: SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO        

Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2: GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR IRRIGATION        
Counsel for respondent No.3 :     SRI.V.PRASAD RAO  

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? CITATIONS:
1. 2008(1) ALT 715
2. 1995(5)  ALT 47
3. (1994) 6 SCC 651

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)
       
        This Writ Appeal by the appellant-writ petitioner is directed against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.10.2012 in W.P.No.19517 of 2012
dismissing the writ petition filed by him   to declare the action of the 2nd
respondent in not disqualifying the 3rd respondent  for the breach of conditions
of tender Document IFB.No.09/RBLISP/2011-12 dated 24.3.2012 as illegal and
arbitrary and  consequently to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to disqualify
Sri M.V.V. Satyanarayana, the 3rd respondent herein,  by awarding contract in
favour of the petitioner.
2.      During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent allotted the
work through Letter No.SE/RBLISP/TS/TP/Viaduct/2012-13/116 dated 28.6.2012.  
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.33179 of 2012 to amend the
prayer that the action of the 2nd respondent in allotting the work as arbitrary
and violative of the terms and conditions of the tender notification.
3.      The parties will be referred to by their status in the writ petition.
          The dispute herein relate to award of contract for construction of  a
Viaduct  at K.M. 8.125 and earth work excavation and forming embankment from
K.M. 7.500 to K.M. 9.000 of Low Level Right Main Canal of Sangambanda Balancing
Reservoir, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District under Rajiv Bhima Lift
Irrigation Scheme Project as per tender notification dated 24.3.2012.
A period
of nine months is prescribed for completion of the work.  The tender process is
in two stages viz., technical evaluation and financial evaluation. Technical
evaluation to be undertaken in the first stage pertains to the qualification and
eligibility of tenderers and in the second stage the financial bids of the
qualified tenderers will be opened.  Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3
applied through e-Procurement and both of them were qualified in the first stage
for opening of their price bids.
At this stage, the petitioner objected in
qualifying the 3rd respondent on the ground that Respondent No.3 has not
satisfied the mandatory conditions of the eligibility criteria of the tender
notification i.e. filing of PAN Card proof and latest Income Tax Return in his
name and 2. Filing of VAT registration and VAT latest clearance.
4.      The tender notification dated 24.3.2012 details about the terms and
conditions of the tender. Clause 24 deals with eligibility criteria. To qualify
for consideration of award of the contract each tenderer should fulfill the
criteria laid down therein. Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 24 provides that the
details and certificates are to be furnished as per the proforma available in
the tender schedules.
Details of documents mentioned therein provide that as
many as 18 documents are required to be furnished by an intending tenderer.
S.No.10 of the list of documents provides for furnishing proof of Income Tax PAN
Card and latest Income Tax return and S.No.18 provides for furnishing of VAT
(Value Added Tax) Registration and latest VAT clearance.
5.      It was argued before the learned single Judge that the 3rd respondent
filed his tender in his individual capacity whereas he has filed PAN Card and
proof of the latest ITRs pertaining to M/s Meher Engineering, a partnership firm
of which he is only a Managing partner.
For the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961
the partnership firm has a separate legal existence by virtue of Section 184 of
the Income Tax Act, therefore, Respondent No.3 who filed the tender in his
individual capacity cannot utilize the PAN and ITRs of the partnership firm.
 It was also argued that as the tender process had commenced in March, 2012, filing
of the latest VAT clearance, which is a mandatory condition, would mean that the
clearance would be in respect of the financial year immediately preceding the
issue of the tender notice i.e. 2010-11, but Respondent No.3 filed VAT Clearance
Certificate of the financial year 2009-10, therefore, Respondent No.3 who has
not fulfilled the requisite conditions of the terms and conditions of the tender
is not entitled to be awarded with the contract.
        On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.3 placing
reliance on the judgment of this Court in  M.V.V. SASTYANARAYANA V. ENGINEER-IN-      
CHIEF, R & B, HYDERABAD1 submitted that since as per Clause (6) of the   
Partnership Amendment Deed dated 2.4.1993 of M/s Meher Engineerings respondent    
No.3 shall be  deemed to be representing the said partnership firm and  for all
purposes all the works executed by him are deemed to have been executed on  
behalf of the said partnership firm and, therefore, filing of the ITRs of the
firm satisfies the requirement of the tender condition.  As regards VAT
clearance certificate dated 21.1.2011 filed by respondent No.3,  it was argued
that it is the latest clearance certificate issued and the same together with
the VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012  issued by the Commercial Taxes Department  
would  satisfy the tender condition.
        Learned Government appearing for the official respondents supported the
arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6.     The learned single Judge placing reliance on the decision of this Court
in S. KIREETENDERANATH REDDY v.  A.P. TRANSACO2 and the decision in M.V.V.          
SATYANARAYANA  v. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, R & B, HYDERABAD (1 supra)  and on a           
consideration of the legal relationship between the partners and Section 184 of
the Income Tax Act, was of the view that the filing of the income tax return and
the PAN card standing in the name of the firm of which the petitioner is the
managing partner, would amount to compliance of the requirement. It was also
held that in view of Clause 6 of the Partnership Amendment Deed, respondent No.3
shall be treated as a representative of the firm and placing reliance on the
said clause and the decision of this Court in M.V.V. Satyanarayana's case it was
held that the ITRs filed in the name of the firm would enure to the benefit of
respondent No.3 even though he has not filed the ITRs standing in his name.  As
regards the VAT clearance certificate, the learned single Judge held that none
of the respondents have disputed the authenticity of the VAT Returns Report
dated 27.1.2012 which was upto December 2011, therefore, Clause 24 of the tender
conditions was duly satisfied and as such the technical bid of respondent No.3
is not liable for rejection on a hyper-technical ground that the formal latest
VAT clearance certificate was not filed by him.
        Holding as above, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as
well as the miscellaneous petition filed for amendment of the prayer.
7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned single erred
in holding that respondent No.3 can make use of the returns even though the
individual partners are liable for getting their individual incomes separately
assessed under section 10 of the Income Tax Act.  The learned single Judge
heavily placed reliance on Clause 6 of the unregistered partnership deed and did
not consider that the firm is a legal entity and respondent No.3 cannot make use
of the returns of the firm.  He further submitted that VAT clearance certificate
includes filing of VAT return and filing of copies of the return.  Respondent
No.3 has not filed the latest VAT clearance certificate for the year 2010-11
together with the return, therefore, he has not satisfied the conditions and
thus not eligible to be considered for award of contract.
8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterated the submissions urged
before the learned single Judge and submitted that the learned single has
rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M.V.V. Satyanarayana's
case which relates to none other than Respondent No.3 himself which dealt with
Clause 6 of the Partnership Amendment Deed. The learned single Judge was
justified in coming to the conclusion that a bid cannot be liable for rejection
on mere hyper-technical ground; therefore, no interference is warranted with the
order impugned.
9.      There is no dispute that Respondent No.3 filed the tender in his
individual capacity. But, he has filed the ITRs assessed in the name of M/s
Meher Engineerings to which he is the managing partner.  He filed the VAT
clearance certificate immediately for the preceding year 2009-10 along with the
VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012 issued by the Commercial Taxes Department for  
the period from December, 2010 to December,  2011. Material placed on record
discloses that Respondent No.3 along with his family members formed a
partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Meher Engineerings through a
registered partnership deed dated 1.4.1993.  Clauses 5 and 6 of the original
partnership deed were, however, amended by an unregistered amendment deed dated  
2.4.1993. The amended Clause 6 which was considered in M.V.V. Satyanarayana's  
case read thus:
"Petitioner No.1, viz., Sri M.V.V. Satyanarayana shall be the Managing Partner
of the Firm who shall have the power of control and management of the affairs of
the business. He shall have the power individually to apply for tenders and
negotiate the terms thereof, to enter into agreements, to accept measurements,
to sign the bills and to receive payments etc.  He shall also have the power to
appoint necessary staff, to maintain the books of accounts and to incur
necessary expenses and to do all acts and things necessary and incidental to
carry on the business of the Firm.  Any of the works tendered and obtained in
the name of Sri M.V.V. Satyanarayana shall be deemed to have been taken on
behalf of this Firm".

10.     Therefore, from the above it is seen that any of the works tendered and
obtained in the name of respondent No.3 shall be deemed to have been taken on
behalf of the firm. In view of this, it can be said that respondent No.3, though
has filed the tender in his individual capacity; it is actually on behalf of the
firm and for the benefit of the firm only.  In such view of the mater, the
respondent No.3 has filed the ITR as managing partner of the firm.  Under the
amended clause 6, respondent No.3 has power to apply individually for tenders
and negotiate the terms thereof, to enter into agreements, to accept
measurements, to sign the bills and to receive payments etc. In Kireetenderanath
Reddy case (2 supra) on which the learned single Judge has placed reliance this
Court held that a firm is neither a legal entity nor a person and has no legal
existence apart from its partners, that a firm's name is merely a description of
the individuals who composed it and that the essential characteristic of a firm
is that each partner is a representative of the other partners and that each of
the partners is an agent and a principal. In the said case, the A.P. Transco has
disqualified the petitioner therein in not taking into consideration the
experience of the firm as his experience as a partner therein. The principle
deduced in the above decision has application to the case of the petitioner
herein.
11.     M.V.V. Satyanarayana's case (supra) where in similar circumstances the
learned single Judge has considered sub-Clause (f) of Clause 3.3(B) of the
Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) is akin to the requirement of filing of PAN card
and filing of return as is herein.  The petitioner therein who is none else than
the Respondent No.3 herein filed the ITRs of the firm as was done in the instant
case. When his technical bid was rejected he filed the writ petition. It was
held:
"...Once it is legally conceded that a partnership firm has no independent legal
existence, I do not see any justification whatsoever in respondent No.2 not
considering the income tax return filed in the name of the firm of which
admittedly the petitioner is the managing partner.  Respondent No.2 seems to be
obsessed with the fact that the income tax return was not 'on the same name' of
the petitioner and this objection looks to me to be hyper-technical. As
concluded supra, the purpose of sub-clause (f) of Clause 3.3(B) appears to be
limited only to ensure that the bidder holds a PAN card meaning thereby that he
should be an assessee.  The proof in respect of such fact could be shown only by
producing the latest income tax return.  With the filing of the income tax
return and the PAN card standing in the name of the firm of which the petitioner
is the managing partner, the requirement of sub-clause (f) is adequately
complied with".

We find no reason to disagree with the view expressed by the learned single
Judge.

12.     Section 184 of the Income Tax Act on which reliance was placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner provides that a firm shall be assessed as a
firm for the purposes of the Act, if  (i) the partnership is evidenced by an
instrument and (ii) the individual shares of the partners are specified in that
instrument.  From this, it can be construed that the firm is a legal entity only
for the purpose of assessment under the provisions of Income Tax Act.  As
rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge there is no prohibition to make
use of the PAN card and ITRs filed by the firm for the purpose of  satisfying
the pre-qualification criteria of a tender document, particularly when Clause
(6) of the amended partnership deed clearly provides that  any works tendered
and obtained in the name of respondent No.3 shall be deemed to have been taken
on behalf of the firm.  Therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by
the learned single Judge that the fiction introduced in section 184 of the Act,
whereby a legal status is conferred on a partnership firm, cannot be extended to
destroy the legal relationship between the partners and the firm and once the
firm is assessed under the Act, such assessment would enure to the benefit of
its partners for the purposes such as the present one, where proof of assessment
of the tenderer is required. In our view, so long as there is no fetter created
by a statute, for the limited purpose of showing proof of PAN Card and filing of
return, the partners of the firm can utilize the assessment of the firm under
the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
13.     The contention of the petitioner that non-filing of the Income Tax Returns
by the 3rd respondent as required under section 10 of the Income Tax Act amounts
to evasion of tax has also no merit.  At this stage, it is apt to quote the
statement made by Respondent at para 8 of his writ affidavit which reads thus:
"Thus from the recitals of the amended Partnership Deed any assets created,
amounts received, advantage gained from out of the work obtained on the name of
this Respondent shall accrue to the benefit of the Firm and hence the Tax
returns of the Firm include the payments received by this Respondent on his
personal name only to the benefit of the Firm.  From the reading of the said
amended clause it is also clear that whenever contracts are obtained on the name
of this Respondent shall automatically go to the credit and benefit of the Firm.
Hence this Respondent had to invariably and necessarily submit the Tax returns
of the Firm since the proceeds of the contracts obtained on this Respondent's
name stand transferred to the Firm and this Respondent has no individual and
independent existence and the individual name is only notional."

        In view of the categorical statement of Respondent No.3, it cannot be
said that there will be tax evasion by respondent No.3.
14.     As regards submission of VAT latest clearance, it may be noted that
S.No.18 of details of documents to be furnished has not indicated that VAT
Return should also form part of the VAT clearance. It only says that latest VAT
clearance is required to be filed and there is no indication that filing of a
return under VAT is mandatory.  Be that as it may, respondent No.3 filed the
return immediately for the preceding year i.e. 2009-10 together with VAT
clearance certificate dated 21.1.2011 and VAT Return Report dated 27.1.l2012
issued by the Commercial Taxes Department.   There is no dispute about the
authenticity of the said certificates.  Admittedly, the tender process has
commenced in March, 2012 and the respondent No.3, though not filed the return,
however, filed the VAT clearance certificate for the period from December, 2010
to December, 2011 which was ratified by the VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012 
issued by the Commercial Taxes Department.  In the absence of any indication in
the  details of documents to be furnished that VAT clearance Certificate for the
year 2010-11 should be filed, it cannot be said that VAT clearance certificate
dated 21.1.2011 together with VAT Return Report dated 27.1.2012 are not valid
for the purpose of satisfying the condition of tender notification. At the time
of entering into contract, it would also be open for the authorities to insist
for furnishing copy of return filed under VAT before the Commercial Taxes
Department.  Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No.3 is not eligible to be considered
for award of contract for non filing of VAT return.
15.     It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 has not
fulfilled any technical criteria; he wants only that respondent No.3 should be
dislodged from consideration of awarding of contract on hyper-technicalities.
As held by the Supreme Court in TATA CELLUR  v.  UNION OF INDIA3  the scope of    
judicial review of administrative decision in matters dealing with tender
process is very limited. Review is permissible only in cases where it was
established there was unreasonableness, arbitrariness and the decision making
process is affected by bias or actuated by mala fides or favouritism. In the
instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that tender process has been
actuated by mala fides or there was unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the
decision making process. Therefore, no relief can be granted in exercise of the
power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16.     For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the writ appeal and it is
accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
       


PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ      
       
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J    
11th December, 2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.