TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant only prohibits the writ court from interfering in any contractual matter and the interference in the auction procedure when the decision making process is arbitrary and for any extraneous consideration. In this case, the learned single judge has not gone into the complexities of the clauses in the notice inviting tender nor substituted any interpretation other than those explicitly provided in the clause. The learned single judge was right in declaring that the GST component was not to be included as per clause 3.3.3 of Ext.P1 and the direction to pay the GST component by respondents 2 and 3 is in tune with the clauses of Ext.P1 and hence there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge, and hence the writ appeal is dismissed. - Hon'ble Judges S.V. Bhatti and Basant Balaji, JJ. For the Appellant : Ravi Krishnan and A. Kumar, Advs. For the Respondents : Santhosh Mathew, Arun Thomas, Karthika Maria and Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Advs. JUDGMENT Basant Balaji, J. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No. 11662 of 2021 are the appellants and the 1st respondent in the writ petition. (The parties are referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mate and all the other bidders quoted their bid by including the GST component also. If the other bidders had not included the GST in their quotes their bids would have been the lowest than that of the petitioner's. It was also contended that as per G.O.(P) No. 2/2018/PWD, taxpayer must pay GST directly to the tax system and also that the Government does not provide Goods and Service Tax beyond the contract amount. 4. The learned single judge, referring to clauses set out in Ext.P1, more particularly Clause 3.3.3 and also BoQ (Bill of Quantities), came to the conclusion that Ext.P9 is contrary to Notice Inviting Tender and it was declared that the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P1 shall govern the contract, hence Ext.P9 was set aside. It was held that, the petitioner in terms of Clause 3.3.3 was not bound to include GST in the bid and therefore directed the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the GST component against the bill raised by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. 5. The main contention against the impugned judgment is that Clause 3.3.3 of notice inviting te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion in Clause 3.3.3 and also in column No. 7 of BoQ. 7. The counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in Reliance Telecom Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another [(2017) 4 SCC 269], to contend that matters relating to complex auction procedure having enormous financial ramification, interference by the courts based upon any perception which is thought to be wise or assumed to be fair can lead to a situation which is not warrantable and may have unforeseen adverse impact. It was held that in the absence of any arbitrariness or favoritism or exercise of power for any collateral purpose in notice inviting application, the exercise of power of judicial review was not warranted. 8. In the decision reported in Caretel Infotech Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others [(2019) 14 SCC 81], it was held that, it should not be the endeavour of courts to give their own interpretation to contracts, more specifically tender terms, at the behest of a 3rd party competing for the tender, rather than what is propounded by the party framing the tender. It was further held that the author of the document is the best person to understand and appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to remit the same. 12. Heard counsel on either side. 13. The arguments on both sides are stated and upon due appreciation of the challenge to the judgment under appeal, we hasten to add that the same contentions, however in a different syntax were put forward before the learned single judge. The judgment under appeal has recorded findings on those contentions. In this intra court appeal the respondent/corporation demonstrates how the findings in the judgment are erroneous warranting an interference. The respondent/corporation is the maker of the tender conditions. Clause 3.3.3 in clear terms excludes GST component. Inviting the GST component while interpreting subsequent clauses is impermissible. Being the maker, in the event of arguable ambiguity, the benefit of ambiguity is extended not to the maker but the other party. 14. The learned single judge has judiciously used his discretion and allowed the writ petition declaring that the terms and conditions in Ext.P1 shall govern the contract and that respondents 2 and 3 have to pay the GST component against the bill raised by the petitioner. The decision cited by the counsel for the appellant only prohibits the writ court fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
