17.02.2026 Court No.25 D/L No.15 S. Gayen IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 3710 of 2026 Tirupati Agro Seed Distributors Pvt. Ltd. &

Anr.

Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Amales Ray, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Mousumi Bhowal …for the Petitioners Mr. Jahar Lal Dey, Ld. AGP Ms. Sukla Das Chandra …for the State

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the condition No.12 of the terms and condition of the tender which read as follows:-

“Local office requirement: Availability of office in the State as well as District of consignee or Dakshin Dinajpur or Uttar Dinajpur during last 3 years as per GST Registration.

Documentary evidence required for this Bid.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Director of ICDS, Government of West Bengal has issued a letter to all the District Magistrates of the State of West Bengal for procurement of Pre-School Education (PSE) Kits for Anganwadi Centres. As per the request made by the Director of ICDS, Government of West Bengal, the Project Officer, Malda has issued the tender notice dated 21^st January, 2026 for supply of Pre-School Education Kits for Angansadi Centre, Malda.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s firm is having GST Registration Certificate being Registration No. 19AACCT2071R1ZS. There will be no different GST Registration in different districts. Though the petitioner is duly qualified to participate in the same tender but only because of the said clause, the petitioner is not in a position to participate the said tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court the authorities of Jalpaiguri and Kolkata as well as Jhargram have also issued the tender notice wherein the petitioner has participated in the said tender and the petitioner has qualified for the said tender for the same work but in the present tender the authorities have imposed the said condition so that the petitioner could not participate in the said tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by incorporating the said clause, the authorities have violated the provision of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chaattisgarh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2119 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object can be achieved by requiring the bidders to demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in contracts of similar nature, regardless of place of performance of contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is duly covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has participated in the said tender issued by the Jalpaiguri Zila Parishad wherein, the same condition was imposed and the petitioner without any objection had participated in the said tender and has got the award in his favour. He submits that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of one tender by participating the tender process without challenging the terms and conditions and in other tender, the petitioner has challenged the tender condition which is not suited to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the respondents have incorporated the said condition as the materials are required to be supplied for the purpose of Pre-School Education of Anganwadi Centres and if after the supply of the material it is found that the materials are damaged and required to be replaced and if the bidder is not having its establishment in the local area, it would be very difficult to exchange the damaged goods and it will take further time to exchange the same, for which the kids of the Anganwadi Centres will be badly prejudiced. The counsel for the State further submits that the authorities are th