IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate (Standing Counsel FCI)

Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocate Mr. Sagar Ratusaria, Advocate for respondent-FCI.

****

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

1. The writ petitioner prays for the quashing of the rejection order Annexure P-4, wherebys the petitioner’s representation against the rejection of his technical bid became rejected. At the very outset, the subject works are at a nascent stage, inasmuch as, though the subject works stand awarded to the successful bidders, but the services asked to be performed by the successful bidders have not yet commenced.

2. The above nascent stage of the works allotted to the successful bidders, is of grave importance, inasmuch as, it may ultimately effectively sway this Court to the extent, that in case this Court is convinced that the disqualification entailed upon the petitioner’s technical bid, thus was as ill made disqualification, therebys, this Court may be further led to after quashing the allotment of works to the successful bidders, to make a mandamus upon the respondents to re-float fresh invitations to offer.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner becomes aggrieved from the requisite tender condition embodied in clause 14(IV) of the tender form conditions, conditions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter:-

“IV. MSEs must indicate their registration number and date of their MSE registration, which should be valid as on last date of submission of tender. MSEs seeking exemption and benefits should upload an attested/self-certified copy of valid registration certificate i.e. Udyam Registration Certificate, giving details such as stores/services etc. Failing which they run the risk of their bid being passed over as ineligible for the benefits applicable to MSEs.”

4. The petitioner claims that he was operating a Micro and Small Enterprises and therebys he was required to be endowed the exemption vis-a- vis the payment of earnest money. However, the supra espousal as made by the petitioner, became not accepted by the respondent. Since the respondent concluded that the present petitioner is not to be endowed the benefit of his operating a micro and small enterprises (MSEs), therebys, when he did not also along with the tender document make payment of the earnest money, therebys, his technical bid was rejected.

5. Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed on record, a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case titled M/s N.G. Projects Limited Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 2022 (6) SCC 127, wherebys the writ Courts have been restrained from, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, to interfere with tender matters or in respect of disputes appertaining to commercial genre(s). Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent has also placed on record the relevant exemption clause which becomes extracted hereinafter:- “EMD EXEMPTION: The bidder EMD exemption, must submit the valid supporting document for the relevant category as per GeM GTC with the bid. Under MSE category, only manufacturers for goods and Service Providers for Services are eligible for exemption from EMD. Traders are excluded from the purview of this Policy.”

6. In addition, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed, on record an order issued on 23^rd March, 2012 by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, whereins, in clause 10 thereof, clause whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, the necessity of exempting Micro and Small Enterprises from payment of earnest money, thus becomes spoken:-

“10. Reduction in transaction cost. % to reduce transac