M/S SHOBIKAA IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus CENTRAL MEDICAL SERVICES SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 20-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 319 
MIS SHOBIKAA IMPEX PVT. LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
CENTRAL MEDICAL SERVICES SOCIETY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.8461 of2016) 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 
(DIPAK MISRA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
Tender - Instructions to Bidders - Compliance of - On facts, 
appellant no. 2 applied for provisional registration for insecticides 
product - Decision taken but registration certificate not made 
available - Thereafter, tender floated by respondent - Submission 
of bid by appellant, however, on the bid opening date certificate of 
registration not available with the appellant - Decision by 
respondents to treat the bid submitted by the tenderer as non-
compliant with the conditions of invitation of bids - Said decision 
upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court - On appeal, held: 
Appellant cannot claim benefit of the decision to grant registration 
certificate and of treating itself as a responsive bidder - It is an 
essential condition incorporated in the Instructions to Bidders - As 
A 
8 
c 
D 
per the Instructions to Bidders, the initial clause was that the bidder 
must be registered under Central Insecticide Board and the. 
E 
documentary evidence should be submitted along with the bid -
Amendment postulated that the registration certificate shall be 
submitted along with the bid at the time of opening of the tender 
and if not, the bid shall be held as non-responsive - Decision by 
the Registration Committee to provisionally approve registration does 
not amount to registration by itself with the CIB, thus, the condition 
was not satisfied under the unamended stipulation -Amended clause 
only provided about the consequence thereof - Even if clause 6 
would not have been amended, the first respondent, on the ground 
of non-production of the registration certificate, would have been 
legally justified to rejec(1Jie bid as non-responsive and non-
compliant - Thus, the ~ssential conditwn· of tender being not met 
with, the tenderer-appellants were ineligible and the tender was 
non-responsive - Insecticides Act, I968 - s. 9(3B). 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1.1 On reading clauses 5.4 and 5.4.1 of Instructions 
H 
319 
320 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
to Bidders, it becomes clear that the goods to be supplied under 
the contract has to be registered with the authority for the supplier 
and purchasers' benefit. It is luminescent that the decision of the 
Registration Committee to grant registration certificate is subject 
to conditions. Apart from that, it had not granted any certificate 
but only a decision was taken. There is a clear distinction between 
a decision taken and the decision acted upon or given effect to. 
Therefore, the appellant cannot claim benefit of the said decision. 
The appellants cannot lay stress on clause 5.4.1 to avail the benefit 
of treating itself as a responsive bidder. As far as Instructions to 
Bidders is concerned, the initial clause was that the bidder must 
be registered under CIB. under the Act and the documentary 
evidence in this regard shall be submitted along with the bid. 
Amendment elaborating the same postulates that the registration 
certificate shall be submitted along with the bid at the time of 
opening of the tender and if it is not done, the bid shall be held as 
non-responsive. A submission is advanced by the first respondent 
that it is a clarificatory condition. It is opined that decision by the 
Registration Committee of CIB to provisionally approve 
registration does not amount to registration by itself with the 
CIB. So the condition, as such, was not satisfied under the 
unamended stipulation. The amended clause only provides about 
the consequence thereof. It can be stated without any shadow of 
doubt that even if clause 6 would not have been amended, the 
first respondent, on the ground of non-production of the 
registration certificate, would have been legally justified to reject 
the bid. It is an essential condition incorporated in the Instructions 
to Bidders. (Paras 20, 211 [331-B, D-H; 332-A) 
1.2 The appellant No.l had not filed an application for grant 
of registration. It was appellant No.2 who had filed it. Be that as 
it may, the decision dated 31.03.2015 was taken by the 
Registration Committee of CIB to approv_e the registration 
subject to the condition DAC granting permission for 
commercialization. That apart, the decision taken by the 
concerned authority, even if it is put on the website, de

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.