JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P2 and award the work to the petitioner.

b) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P2 and execution of work therein.

c) to direct the 3rd respondent to update/correct the profile of petitioner by incorporating correct details provided by the petitioner, in particular, entry relating to MSME, in the profile maintained by the 3rd respondent and consider the bid submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

d) To hold that the petitioner is entitled for the bid as per Exhibit P2 on the basis of pre-qualification and price bid submitted to respondents Nos.1 and 2.

e) To set aside the work order, if any, awarded to the 4th respondent pursuant to Exhibit P2 proceedings.

f) To direct the respondents to act in strict adherence to the provisions to MSME Act and Rules considering Exhibit P1 and prior registrations of the petitioner proprietorship as MSME and to grant all rights, privileges and benefits conferred by Act to the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner is a registered MSME. According to the petitioner, he is the lowest bidder in Ext.P2 tender proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that they uploaded MSME registration and all required testimonials along with the bid documents. It is further stated that the petitioner had successfully qualified the techno-commercial bid. Thereafter, the price bid was opened by the 1st respondent with three eligible bidders. It is stated in the writ petition that, among the three eligible bidders, the petitioner proprietorship stands as L1(1st lowest). The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not considered the petitioner's bid under the category of MSME citing a clerical mistake emerged from the part of the 3rd respondent at the time of registering in the GEM portal. GEM portal seeks to indicate in the relevant column whether the bidder comes under MSME category or not by marking it as either 'applicable' or 'not applicable' in the relevant column. It is the case of the petitioner that by an inadvertent technical mistake, the officials of the GEM has marked as 'Not applicable' in the MSME category column instead of marking it as 'Applicable'. It is also stated that the 1st respondent started inviting tender through GEM portal way back from March, 2021. Petitioner's profile is registered with the GEM portal. It is also the case of the petitioner that they had bagged four contracts of the 1st respondent through GEM portal for the last nine months as MSME. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the attempt of the respondents is to eliminate the petitioner and to award contract to the 4th respondent with malafide intention and to favour the 4th respondent. Hence this writ petition.

3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents. I also heard the counsel appearing for the 4th and 5th respondents.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contention.

5. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P2 and the relevant clauses in it. The counsel also submitted that the mistakes crept in the bid document is already corrected by the 3rd respondent. The counsel also submitted that the relevant documents to substantiate that the petitioner is an MSME is already uploaded along with the bid documents. That itself shows that the error committed was a mistake. The counsel submitted that the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in rejecting the bid of the petitioner is illegal. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. J. Hussain [2013 KHC