Rongdoi Sales Private Ltd v. The Union of India and 6 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010126542024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/210/2024o RONGDOIoSALESoPRIVATEoLTDo REPRESENTEDoBYoITSoPROPRIETORoGAURABoGOHAIN,oS/OoDINESHo RESIDENToOFoNAMRUP,oDISToDIBRUGARH,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo6oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoUNDERoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA,o MINISTRYoOFoFINANCE,oDEPARTMENToOFoEXPENDITUREoPROCUREMENTo POLICYoDIVISION,oLOKoNAYAK,oBHAWAN,oNEWoDELHI 2:THEoDIRECTORoMSMEoENTERPRISES oGOVT.oOFoINDIA oNIRMANoBHAWAN o7THoFLOOR oMAULANAoAZADoROAD 3:THEoADDITIONALoSECRETARYoANDoDEVELOPMENToCOMMISSIONER oMSMEoENTERPRISES oNIRMANoBHAWAN o7THoFLOOR oMAULANAoAZADoROAD 4:THEoASSAMoPETROoCHEMICALoLIMITED oREPRESENTEDoBYoCHAIRMAN oASSAMoPETROoCHEMICALoLTD.oNAMRUP oPOoPARBATPURoDISToDIBRUGARH oASSAMo786623 5:THEoCHAIRMAN oASSAMoPETROoCHEMICALoLTD.oNAMRUP oPOoPARBATPURoDISToDIBRUGARH oASSAMo786623 Page No.# 2/4 6:THE CONTRACT AND PURCHASE DEPARTMENT APL REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM PETRO CHEMICAL LTD. NAMRUP PO PARBATPUR DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM 786623 7:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CONTRACT AND PURCHASE DEPARTMENT ASSAM PETRO CHEMICAL LTD. NAMRUP PO PARBATPUR DIST DIBRUGARH ASSAM 78662 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

28.06.2024. (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2924/2024, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2) The appellant is a "start up" industry and obtained a certificate of "start up" on 26.02.2024, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Government of India.

(3) The grievance raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents have issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) on

17.01.2024, for opening dealers for selling of Methanol in bulk quantities from APL, Namrup to North Zone for an initial period of three (3) years. However, in Page No.# 3/4 the EOI, there is no incorporation of relaxation clause for "start ups", in respect of criteria of prior term over and prior experience, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 20.06.2019, issued by the Ministry of Finance.

(3) Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition while observing that the EOI was issued on 17.01.2024 and the last date of submission of bids in response to the said EOI was 19.02.2024. But the appellant was granted the certificate of "start up" only on 26.02.2024 and therefore, the appellant was not even eligible to file its bid in response to the EOI and therefore, no relief can be granted to it.

(4) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the certificate of "start up" was issued by the concerned Department in favour of the appellant on 26.02.2024, the appellant has locus to challenge the bid proceedings. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489.

(5) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(6) It is to be noticed that the certificate of recognition was issued only on

26.02.2024. It is also to be noticed that the Office of the Registrar of Companies in its letter dated 05.02.2024 specifically clarified that the certificate of recognition is only an approval for availability of name of a proposed company. However, the holder of the certificate of "start up" cannot start business or enter into any agreement, contract, etc. in the name of the proposed company, until and unless the certificate of registration is issued by the Registrar fo Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rules made there under. Page No.# 4/4

(7) Admittedly, the certificate of registration was issued in favour of the appellant to start the company on 21.02.2024 and as such the appellant was not even entitled to submit its bids, in response to the EOI.

(8) So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance is concerned, the same is quite distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the said case, a person who approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court was precluded from submitting his bids, in response to the tender notice and the authorities concerned have awarded the contract to a party who was ineligible on the date of its consideration. However, in the present case the appellant was not precluded from submission of his bid and it is not its case that contract is awarded to a party who is not qualified. In such circumstances, the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no help to the appellant.

(9) Having argued at length, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to pursue us to take a different view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

(10) Hence, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant