[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sohan Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 December, 2025
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
129 CWP-36626-2025
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
SOHAN LAL ......PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Patwalia, Advocate,
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate and
Ms. Shruti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Pandher, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
LISA GILL, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside order dated
13.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.4 whereby
petitioner's technical bid has been rejected and he has been declared
non-responsive; orders dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) and
20.11.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.3 and
respondent No.2 respectively, whereby his appeals have been
dismissed. It is further prayed that aforesaid three orders be stayed
during pendency of this petition and bid of petitioner be treated as
responsive.
2. Brief facts as pleaded are that from 08.09.2025 to
11.09.2025, tenders for labour and cartage were invited for various
clusters in District Faridkot. Petitioner participated in the said tender
1 of 6
process for Faridkot-1 & Faridkot-2 clusters. District Tender
Committee, (respondent No.4) on 13.09.2025, rejected bid of
petitioner. First appeal filed by petitioner on 15.09.2025 was
dismissed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.10.2025 on the
ground that petitioner had not submitted requisite audited financial
documents in violation of 5(G) of terms and conditions of tender
document. Petitioner thereafter filed second appeal alongwith
Chartered Accountant's Certificate clarifying that under Section 44-AD
of Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act') audit was not necessary
as petitioner's turnover was below statutory threshold. Respondent
No.2 vide order dated 20.11.2025 rejected the appeal leading to filing
of present writ petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner vehemently argues
that bid of petitioner has been incorrectly treated as non-responsive.
The authorities have further grossly erred in dismissing appeals filed
by present petitioner who it was found has not complied with condition
5(G) of the Tender Document. It is submitted that an assessee/person
having a turnover less than Rs.3 crores as per Section 44-AD of the
Act is not required to maintain detailed books of accounts or get the
accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant, therefore, insistence of
respondents upon an audit report in terms of Clause 5(G) of tender
document is clearly unjustified. The condition as such can thus not be
read to mean that audit report should be submitted by the tenderer
2 of 6
who is otherwise not required to have its account audited under
Section 44-AD of the Act. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be
allowed as prayed for.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, on advance notice, has
opposed this writ petition while submitting that condition in the tender
document is absolutely clear and it is not open to petitioner to now
turn around and raise objections thereto, after having participated in
the tender process. It is further submitted that documents submitted
by petitioner were deficient inasmuch as audited balance sheet was
not submitted. Moreover, Chartered Accountant certification was also
found to be incomplete as it is mentioned in order dated 24.10.2025
passed by First Appellate Authority. As per Clause 5(G), tenderer
should have a minimum turnover @ Rs.100/-MT from the
transportation/cartage work of food grains of Government
Procurement Agencies including FCI Punjab Region for a minimum
period of one year in the last seven financial years. This information
was clearly missing. Petitioner thus has rightly treated as non-
responsive. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length
and have carefully perused the file.
6. Floating of tenders from 08.09.2025 to 11.09.2025;
submission of bid by petitioner and rejection thereof, vide order dated
13.09.2025 as well as rejection of his appeals vide order dated
3 of 6
24.10.2025 and 2011.2025, is a matter of record. At the outset, it is
relevant to refer to Clause 5(G) of the Tender Document which reads
as under:-
"G. Tenderer must have a minimum turnover @ Rs.100/-
MT from the transportation/cartage work of food grains of
Government Procurement Agencies including FCI Punjab
Region for a minimum period of one year in the last seven
financial years i.e., from year 2018-19 to 2024-25
equivalent to the cluster with highest capacity applied for.
Note 1: Copies of the audited balance sheet of the
concerned financial year for which turnover has been
submitted shall also be uploaded along with the Technical
Bid as proof of turnover. Provided that if the balance sheet
pertains to the year 2019-20 or later then CA certification
must bear UDIN No.
Note 2: If the tenderer does not have the work
experience/turnover as specified in clause-5F & 5G of the
policy, bidder shall have to submit EMD @ Rs.15/- MT for
the expected arrival with the MD PUNGRAIN."
7. It is apparent that as per aforesaid clear cut condition of
tender document, it was imperative upon the petitioner to have
submitted audited balance sheet of the concerned financial year for
which turnover had been submitted besides submitting proof to show
minimum turn over @ Rs.100/-MT from the transportation/cartage
work of food grains of Government Procurement Agencies including
FCI Punjab Region for a minimum period of one year in the last seven
financial years. The said documents had admittedly not been
4 of 6
submitted by petitioner. Merely because petitioner was not under a
mandate to have his account audited under Section 44-AD of the Act
cannot per se mean that such condition cannot be imposed by
respondents and that petitioner is not required to submit duly audited
documents in terms and conditions of the tender. Petitioner has further
not challenged this condition prior to submission of his bid. It also a
matter of record that documents evidencing petitioner's required
minimum turnover from transportation/cartage work of food grains of
Government Procurement Agencies including FCI Punjab Region
were not appended by petitioner alongwith his technical bid. It is
clearly mentioned in order dated 24.10.2025, by First Appellate
Authority that incomplete documentation was there.
8. Reference by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner to
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others, 2025 INSC 1276 is
of no avail to petitioner. In Kimberley Club Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was
found that technical bid of appellant therein had been rejected on the
ground that one document i.e. 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by it
had not been issued by District Magistrate. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court on considering the facts found that none of the tender conditions
specified that said 'haisiyat praman patra' submitted by a prospective
bidder must be issued only by a District Magistrate and by no other.
Said document had been duly submitted by tenderer therein though
5 of 6
not issued by District Magistrate. It was in this factual matrix that
Hon'ble the Supreme Court directed re-consideration of technical bid
of said appellant. We take note of the fact that Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the above said matter specifically reiterated the settled
position re: judicial review as under:-
"11. In tender matters, the court exercising judicial review
does not sit in appeal over the decision of a tendering
authority regarding disqualification of bid. Only in cases
where such decision is dehors the terms of the NIT or is
patently arbitrary would the Court exercise powers of
judicial review and set aside such a decision."
9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, we
do not find any ground whatsoever to cause interference in this matter
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
10. No other argument is addressed.
11. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
[LISA GILL]
JUDGE
15.12.2025 [LAPITA BANERJI]
Prince JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
