The requirement of a VAT certificate for the grant of a license is an essential condition and cannot be waived. The Excise Department has the authority to prescribe conditions for the tender process, including the submission of a VAT certificate.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the acceptance letter dated 23rd February 2007 issued by respondent No. 1 i. e. the Government of NCT of Delhi to the private respondent No. 3 to 7 whereby the said respondents have been granted the L-9/clw-1 License for the wholesale supply of Country Liquor in the National Capital Territory of Delhi for the Licensing Year 2007-2008. The petitioner has further sought a mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to accept the petitioner"s offer dated 5th February 2007 for grant of L-9/clw-1 license for the said Licensing year.

( 2 ) IN January 2007, Government of NCT of Delhi invited tenders for grant of L-9/clw-1 licenses for wholesale supply of Country Liquor for the licensing year 2007-08. The notice inviting tender issued by the Commercial-cum-Special Secretary of Excise enumerated the documents which were to accompany the tenders. The bids were to be submitted by 1 PM on 5th February 2007. Amongst others, the following documents were also required to be submitted alongwith their bids by the tenderers:

"ii) "no Dues Certificate in favour of the tenderer issued by the collector of Excise, Delhi, after the date of this notice". x) "no defaulter of dues of VAT Certificate from the Trade and Tax department of NCT of Delhi. " (hereinafter referred to as the VAT certificate ). "

( 3 ) CLAUSE 6 of the NIT further stated that conditional offers, offers without bank drafts of earnest money, other documents, etc and offers which are not in the prescribed tender form/document, will not be entertained and be summarily rejected. Tenders received after the stipulated date and time were not to be entertained and were to be rejected.

( 4 ) THE petitioner submits that it obtained the "no Dues" certificate from the Excise Department, which was submitted alongwith its bid. There were 11 other parties was participated in the tender process. On 5. 2. 2007 when the tenders were opened, the bid of the petitioner was found to be the lowest. It is stated that the petitioner offered a bid of Rs. 155. 86 per case for 20% of the quantity, whereas the next lower rate offered was Rs. 162/- per case.

( 5 ) IT is submitted that the respondent department, with a view to bring down the rates through negotiations, called seven of the bidders to attend the negotiation meeting vide letter dated 14. 2. 2007 to be held on 15. 2. 2007. Even though the petitioner"s rates were the lowest, the petitioner was not called for negotiations. It is asserted that the exclusion of the petitioner from negotiation was unjustified and in violation of the CVC Guidelines. As per the guidelines, first five tenderers i. e. , L-1 to L-5 ought to have been called for negotiations. The petitioner represented against its exclusion on 15. 2. 2007 at 8. 30 AM and even approached the Finance Minister of Delhi State to redress its grievance. It is further alleged that the Principal Secretary (Finance), who was one of the members of the negotiating Committee, informed the petitioner that the reason for non consideration of the petitioner"s bid was the failure of the petitioner to deposit the Value Added Tax (VAT) and produce the VAT certificate. It is alleged that the Principal Secretary (Finance) required the petitioner to give an undertaking that the unpaid amount of VAT would be paid within 10 days and the petitioner was further assured that he would be allowed to participate in the negotiations to be held on the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner states, it gave the undertaking. Despite the said undertaking, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the negotiations. It is averred that in the meanwhile, the respondents have negotiated and finalized the rate of rs. 162/- per case as opposed to the petitioner"s offer of Rs. 155. 86 per case.

( 6 ) THE petitioner alleges that by accepting the higher rate of rs