M/S SURAT SINGH AND SONS v. UTTARAKHAND RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WPMB/63/2025 · 2025-03-07
Alok Mahra, G Narendar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3574 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3574 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMB No. 63 of 2025 HON’BLE G. NARENDAR, C.J.
HON’BLE ALOK MAHRA, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The short point that is canvassed before this Court is that the respondents have rejected the bid of the petitioner, who claimed himself to be L-1 on the ground that the petitioner’s PAN Card was issued on 2020 and he has submitted the ITR from the year
2019. The ITR which was submitted by the petitioner’s contractor are having different PAN Cards. Hence, the respondent no. 2 recommended for re-tender.
4.
Learned counsel for respondents would submit that notification/re-tendering of the same work have been issued.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the ITRs submitted by the petitioner were having multiple PAN Cards, as for the assessment year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, the PAN Card number is ACDFS5774J and that for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24, the PAN Card number is AEEFS1637M. Thus, the petitioner was having multiple PAN Cards, which was not permissible.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny this fact, but, have submitted that since earlier the petitioner was a partnership firm and they intended to convert it into a private limited company by the same name, as such, they have surrendered their earlier PAN Card, but, the private limited company could not be formed, therefore, they have
continued with the same partnership firm and obtained a new PAN Card.
7. It is settled proposition of law that an individual or a firm cannot have multiple PAN Cards. In that view of the matter, the decision of the respondents to re-advertise the tender is not interferable.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being bereft of substance or merits stands rejected.
9. It is made clear that rejection of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner if he desires to participate in the re-tender.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
07.03.2025 Ujjwal