seeking extension of further time for submission of its bid, citing a reason of change in the indirect taxation law, viz., Goods and Services Tax Act, which came into force from 1.7.2017. When the tender was open from 10.11.2016, the petitioner had purchased the bid document only on 28.8.2017 and raised queries on 29.8.2017. That shows that the petitioner is not really interested in participating in the bid and its intention is also not bona fide. Considering the want of merits in such request, this Court refused to extend the time. However, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.1160 of 2017 and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.9.2017. When the petitioner had not submitted the tender on or before 15.9.2017, the writ petition became infructuous and liable to be dismissed. This apart, when the bidders were allowed sufficient time to raise further clarification till 14.6.2017, about 1029 queries were raised after the pre-bid meeting and again after getting approval of KfW, the German funding agency, reply for the 1029 queries were hosted on the internet to the bidders and they were also allowed sufficient time to raise further clarification till 14.6.2017. However, due to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax from 1.7.2017, the due date for submission of the tender was also further extended to 31.7.2018 to consider the change in the addendums due to GST. When the bidders were given sufficient time to consider the replies to their queries totalling 1174 numbers along with 122 numbers of addemdums and also to consider the impact of GST, many of the bidders have purchased the tender documents well in advance. But the petitioner had purchased the tender document 58 days after the introduction of GST, namely, on 28.8.2017 and started seeking clarifications on GST and extension of time with an ulterior motive to delay the tender process. Therefore, the first and second respondents refused further extension of time, for the simple reason that the extension were granted for eight times to the previous bidders, keeping in mind that the prestigious project to solve the drinking water needs of the people of Chennai city should not be unnecessarily delayed. On this basis, it was further pleaded that the petitioner is not a bona fide bidder. Hence the writ petition of the petitioner being ill-advised is liable to be dismissed on the ground of no locus to challenge the impugned tender. In any event, the petitioner has not made out any grievance against the respondents.
