Delhi High Court - Orders
Pmi Electro Mobility Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Convergence Energy Services Limited & ... on 20 December, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17199/2024 & CM APPL. 73131/2024
PMI ELECTRO MOBILITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Ashish
Dholakia, Senior Advocates with Mr.
Manu Nair, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr.
Neelabh Shreesh, Mr. Sumant
Narang, Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Rahul
Kumar and Mr. Aryan Roy,
Advocates.
versus
CONVERGENCE ENERGY SERVICES LIMITED & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Samdarshi Sanjay, Mr. Amit Gupta,
Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Ms. Monika
Sharma, Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms.
Shreya Jetly, Advocates with Mr.
Hussain Taqvi, G.P. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 20.12.2024 CM APPL. 73130/2024 (seeking exemption from filing the certified copies, true typed/translated copies, annexures having appropriate left side margins)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 1 of 14This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59
2. The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 73129/2024 (for stay) & W.P.(C) 17199/2024
4. When the matter was heard at length on 13th December, 2024, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG for Respondent No. 1, sought a short accommodation to take instructions. In the meantime, the Court had directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner and that the award of contract for the tender in question not be finalized. Those directions were directed to continue on 17th December, 2024.
5. Today, the Court has again heard further submissions regarding the Petitioner's request for interim measures.
FACTS AND PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:
6. The facts of the case are as follows:
6.1. The Petitioner, PMI Electro Mobility Solutions Pvt Ltd., participated in a Request for Proposal1 floated by Respondent No. 1 for procurement, supply, operation and maintenance of 3600 Electric Buses and the development of allied electric and civil infrastructure under the PM e-Bus Sewa. The Petitioner submitted its bid for Lot nos. 4,6,7,8,12 and 13 along with affidavit dated 6th February, 20242 declaring that there were no convictions or pending investigations against them or any of its consortium members.
6.2. Subsequently, on 8th March, 2024 Respondent No. 2, the Ministry of 1 "RfP"2
Signed and attested on 5th February, 2024 W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 2 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 Heavy Industries, notified Respondent No. 1 that a joint inquiry was ongoing against the Petitioner for the alleged violation of FAME-II Scheme and PMP Guidelines. Respondent No. 1 then served a show cause notice on 22nd March, 2024 calling upon the Petitioner to explain why the bid should not be cancelled, in light of the non-disclosure of the ongoing investigation against them.
6.3. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1, through the impugned communication dated 26th November, 2024,3 cancelled the Petitioner's bid on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts. The earnest money deposited by the Petitioner and its consortium parties was also invoked. Moreover, communications have been sent to the bank for the encashment of the bank guarantee.
6.4. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Counsel for Petitioner, contends that the Impugned order, is unsustainable in both facts as well as law. The Petitioner has not misrepresented or concealed any fact from Respondent No. 1 while submitting its affidavit of disclosure on 6th February, 2024. He emphasizes that as on the date of filing of the affidavit, the Petitioner was not aware of any pending inquiry against them. The Petitioner first learned of the inquiry during the hearing held on 21st June, 2024, in separate writ petition [W.P.(C) 8677/2024] titled PMI Electro Mobility Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India. In fact, upon becoming aware of the inquiry, the Petitioner sought clarification from Respondent No. 2 on 19th May 2024. 6.5. In any event, Mr. Nayar explains that nothing in the bid documents, obliged the Petitioner to disclose such an inquiry in the first place. The bid documents include the format of the affidavit of disclosure that the W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 3 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 Petitioner was required to submit along with the bid. The Petitioner bona fide understood that the disclosure requirement applied to only 'criminal' investigation. Mr. Nayar asserts that, the entire basis of cancelling the Petitioner's bid is illogical, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 6.6. To support the aforenoted contentions, Mr. Nayar also places reliance on the decision in Caretel Infotech Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others.4 RESPONDENT NO. 1'S CONTENTIONS:
7.1 Mr. Chetan Sharma, on the other hand, strongly opposes the grant of any interim relief. He submits that the Petitioner was required to make a full disclosure of all pending inquiries and investigations against them. Such transparency, he maintains, is fundamental to sustaining the integrity of public tenders, enabling the procuring authority to decide whether it wishes to engage with an entity "tainted" by pending scrutiny. Hence, the affidavit must be understood in light of the purpose behind the requirement for disclosures, which are essential to maintain integrity in any bidding process. Failure on the part of the Petitioner from making an honest and candid disclosure of all the pending inquiries and investigation necessarily entails the consequence of cancelling the bidding process. To support his contention, Mr. Sharma has placed reliance on Clause 5.7, 16.2 of the RfP and 7.9 (e) of the Instructions to bidders.
7.2. Moreover, Mr. Sharma strongly controverts the Petitioner's claim of being unaware of the pending inquiry. He contends that this stance is entirely contradicted by the communication dated 22nd December 2023, 3 "Impugned order"
4(2019) 14 SCC 81 W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 4 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 which, in paragraphs 11 and 38, clearly reveals the Petitioner's knowledge of the investigation.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
8. We are at the initial stage and the Respondents are yet to file their response to the present petition. The Court, mindful that an interim order might derail a major procurement process, recognizes the seriousness of the allegations. Yet, the facts as recounted suggest that the cancellation of the Petitioner's bid could impose a significant financial and operational burden, perhaps unnecessarily.
9. The affidavit required to be furnished by the bidders including the Petitioner as part of the bidding process, stipulates as under:
"ANNEXURE 11 - FORMAT FOR AFFIDAVIT (To be on non-judicial stamp paper of appropriate value as per Stamp Act) We [including any of our Parent company, Associate and Consortium Member], hereby declare that as on Bid Due Date:
a. the Bidder & any of its Associate including any Consortium Member, their directors or key personnel have not been barred or included in the blacklist by any government agency or authority in India, the government of the jurisdiction of the Bidder or Members where they are incorporated or the jurisdiction of their principal place of business, or by any international financial institution such as the World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, Inter- American Development Bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank etc. or the United Nations or any of its agencies.
b. the Bidder & any of its Associate including any Consortium Member & any of its Associate or their directors have not been convicted of any offence in India or abroad.
c. We further declare that following investigations are pending / no investigation is pending [strike off whichever is not applicable] against us [including any of our Consortium Member or Associate or Parent] or CEO or any of our directors/ manager/key managerial personnel of the Applicant /Consortium Member or their Associate.W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 5 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 d. We further undertake to inform the CESL of any such matter as mentioned above on its occurrence after the date of this affidavit till the Effective Date.
e. We undertake that, in case, any information provided in relation to this affidavit is found incorrect at any time hereafter, our Bid / LoCQ / concession agreement (if executed) would stand rejected / recalled / terminated, as the case may be.
...........................................
Signature and Name of the authorized signatory of the Bidder / Lead Member of the Bidding Consortium ................................ (Signature of Notary Public) Place: ..............................
Date: ..............................
Note: In case any investigation is pending against the Applicant, including any Consortium Member or Associate, or CEO or any of the directors/ manager/key managerial personnel of the Applicant /Consortium /Member or their Associate, full details of such investigation including the name of the investigating agency, the charge/offence for which the investigation has been launched, name and designation of persons against whom the investigation has been launched and other relevant information should be disclosed under this affidavit."
10. As can be noted from the aforenoted format of affidavit, clause (b) requires the bidder or any of the associate including consortium member or a director, to make a disclosure of conviction of any offence in India or abroad. Clause (c) further requires declaration of the investigation which are pending against them. The question stands whether this phrase covers only "criminal" investigations or extends to any regulatory scrutiny, including the joint inquiry flagged by the Ministry of Heavy Industries. The Respondents emphasize that Clause (c), includes even such inquiries which may be W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 6 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 outside the scope of a criminal investigation.
11. It must be noted that the affidavit has an explanatory note, which clearly specifies as follows:
"Note: In case any investigation is pending against the Applicant, including any Consortium Member or Associate, or CEO or any of the directors/ manager/key managerial personnel of the Applicant /Consortium /Member or their Associate, full details of such investigation including the name of the investigating agency, the charge/offence for which the investigation has been launched, name and designation of persons against whom the investigation has been launched and other relevant information should be disclosed under this affidavit."
[Emphasis added]
12. The explanation provided through a note, suggests that the disclosure of the Applicant, has to be in relation to an investigation being carried out by the 'investigating agency'. While this Court is not emphasizing the distinction between an 'investigation' and an 'inquiry', the use of the term "Investigating Agency" in the explanatory note naturally leads to inference that the inquiry referred to pertains to a "criminal investigation". On this issue, the judgment dated 8th December, 2020, in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. & Anr.5 relied upon by Mr. Sharma, also gives certain guidance. In the said case, the Bidder was supposed to disclose certain details as an undertaking to the following effect:
"10. Annexure I, entitled "Details of bidder", contains, in Clause 7, the following:
"7. (a) I/We further certify that no investigation by a regulatory authority is pending either against us/any member of joint venture or our sister concern or against our CEO or any of our Directors/managers/ employees.
(b) I/We further certify that no investigation by any investigating agency in India or outside is pending either against us/any member of joint venture or our sister or against our CEO concern or any of our Directors/ managers/employees.5
AIROnline2020 SC 905 W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 7 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:02:59 A statement by the bidder and each of the members of its joint venture (where applicable) disclosing material non-performance or contractual non-compliance in current projects, as on bid due date is given below (attach extra sheets, if necessary) w.r.t. Para 2.1.14."
13. The Court after noting the submissions made on behalf of the bidder, on the requirement for making disclosures in the context of a specific clause of the bid document, made the following observations:
"18. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of UPSBC, relied heavily on the judgment in Caretel Infotech Lid. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. ("Caretel Infotech"), for the proposition that where a tender was in a particular format, nothing beyond the information that is required by that format need be given, and since no investigation was in fact pending against his client, Clause 7(b) of Annexure I could not have been invoked to non-suit his client. He also relied upon the judgment in State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, in which case the petitioner concerned had to fill up a recruitment form in which previous convictions had to be stated. Since merely being arrested would not amount to a previous conviction, it was held that the petitioner could not be said to have suppressed the fact of his being convicted. He then argued that in any case if there is any ambiguity in the clause the rule of contra proferentem applies, as a result of which the literal interpretation, which is a possible interpretation, ought to prevail, and for this he cited Bank of India v. K. Mohandas. He was at pains to point out that no ground other than Clause 7(b) of Annexure I could now be taken, as the ground of fraudulent practice, which was sought to be argued by the State of Madhya Pradesh in this Court, was not a ground on which UPSBC's bid was rejected. He also pointed out that public interest would require that the financial bid be accepted, being Rs 9 crore less than that of Rajkamal.
26. Judged by these parameters, it is clear that this Court must defer to the understanding of clauses in tender documents by the author thereof unless, pithily put, there is perversity in the author's construction of the documents or mala fides. As against this, Shri Dhruv Mehta is also correct in drawing our attention to Caretel Infotech, and in particular, to paras 4, 9, 22 and 23, which are set out hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 85-87 & 89-90) "4. The appellant submitted the bid in respect of the e-tender on 19-12-2017. In terms of Clause 20 extracted aforesaid, a format had been provided for the declaration to be made, which is as under:
'DECLARATION NON BLACKLISTED/NON W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 8 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00 BANNED/NON HOLIDAY LISTED PARTY We confirm that we have not been banned or blacklisted or delisted or holiday listed by any government or quasi- government agencies or public sector undertakings Date: -----------
Name of Tenderer:-------
----
Place:-----------
Signature & Seal of Tenderer: ------
----
Note: If a bidder has been banned by any government or quasi- government agencies or public sector undertakings, this fact must be clearly stated with details. If this declaration is not given along with the UNPRICED bid, the tender will be rejected as non-responsive.' The appellant submitted the declaration in terms aforesaid ie. stating that the appellant had not been blacklisted by any government or quasi- government agency or public sector undertakings.
* * *
9. The decision of the High Court is predicated on two facts-firstly the non-disclosure of the factum of the show-cause notice issued to the appellant amounted to violation of the undertaking.
Linked to this issue is that Clause 20(777) of the tender provided for an integrity pact "ensuring transparency and fair dealing" and that integrity pact had been duly signed and submitted by the appellant. Secondly, the Division Bench doubted the compliance, by the appellant, of Clause 8 read with Clause 10(g) of Section 4 of the tender. This controversy pertains to the clause dealing with the business continuity and the requirement of submitting a valid ISO certificate for the purpose of securing the tender. The relevant clauses read as under:
'8. Business continuity OMCs currently have an agreement for inbound calls with a service provider based in different regions. The successful bidder has to submit the transition plan to migrate to new platform and facility with "ZERO" disruption of services with respect to the following areas:
(a) Toll-free services.
(b) IVRS based call handling.
(c) Diversion of call traffic at the successful bidder's premises.W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 9 of 14
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00
(d) Trained operators at the time of go-live date.
* * *
10. Other mandatory requirements:
(g) Valid ISO Certification 27001 for security and ISO 2301 for business continuity.' * * *
22. It is no doubt true that Clause 20 does provide for four eventualities, as submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent 3. The present case is not one where on the date of submission of the tender the appellant had been banned, blacklisted or put on holiday list. The question before us, thus, would be the effect of an action for blacklisting and holiday listing being initiated. The declaration to be given by the bidder is specified in Clause 20(if), which deals with the first three aspects. The format enclosed with the tender documents also refers only to these three eventualities. It is not a case where no specific format is provided, where possibly it could have been contended that the disclosure has to be in respect of all the four aspects. The format having been provided, if initiation of blacklisting was to be specified, then that ought to have been included in the format. It cannot be said that the undertaking by the appellant made it the bounden duty of the appellant to disclose the aspect of a show-cause notice for blacklisting. We say so as there is a specific clause with the specific format provided for, requiring disclosures, as per the same.
23. It may be possible to contend that the format is not correctly made. But then, that is the problem of the framing of the format by Respondent 1. It appears that Respondent I also, faced with the factual situation, took a considered view that since Clause 200(1) provided for the four eventualities, while the format did not provide for it, the appellant could not be penalised. May be, for future the format would require an appropriate modification!"
27. It is clear that Shri Dhruv Mehta is right when he refers to and relies upon the aforesaid judgment in Caratel Infotech for the proposition that where there is a format which had to be strictly complied with, his client was justified in going by the literal reading of the aforesaid format, which only required a disclosure of pending investigations under Clause 7(6) of Annexure 1 of NIT. However, as has correctly been pointed out by Shri Saurbh Mishra and Shri Puneet Jain, Clause 7(b) of Annexure 1, which is in terms similar to Para 13 of Appendix I-A. must be read together with Para 11 W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 10 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00 thereof, which, as has been pointed out hereinabove, requires the bidder to certify that in regard to matters other than security and integrity of the country, the bidder has not been convicted by a court of law or indicted. Clearly in the facts of the present case, though the investigation is no longer pending and though there is no conviction by a court of law, UPSBC has certainly been "indicted", in that, a charge-sheet has been filed against it relatable to the FIR dated 15- 5-2018 in which a trial is pending, though stayed by the High Court. Also, Shri Saurabh Mishra is correct in stating that "fraudulent practice", as defined in Clause 4.3(b) of NIT, would include an omission of facts or disclosure of incomplete facts in order to influence the bidding process. In the facts of the present case, there is clearly an omission of a most relevant fact and suppression of the same fact, namely, that an FIR had been lodged against UPSBC in respect of the construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed, and in which a charge-sheet had been lodged.
28. This being the case, State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu is clearly distinguishable, as in the facts of that case, the expression "convicted" could not have possibly included the factum of arrest which was pre-conviction. On the facts of the present case, we have seen as to how UPSBC has indulged in a fraudulent practice and has suppressed the fact that it was indicted for offences relatable to the construction of a bridge by it, which had collapsed. Equally, paras 12 to 18 of the judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat17, which distinguish between investigation, inquiry and trial in a criminal case, are also of no avail to UPSBC in view of the finding hereinabove. Equally, the well-known rule of contra proferentem as expounded in Bank of India v. K. Mohandas (at para
32) is also of no avail, given the fact that there is no ambiguity whatsoever insofar as the fraudulent practice clause and Para 11 of Appendix I-A are concerned.
29. Adverting to Shri Dhruv Mehta's argument that his client has been non-suited only on application of Clause 7(b) of Annexure I, a reference to the technical evaluation committee's order dated 13- 3-2020 declaring UPSBC's bid non-responsive shows that it also refers to Appendix I-A comprising the technical bid and Para 13 thereof, in particular. We have already held that Para 13 has to be read along with Para 11, which clearly states that a person who is "indicted" for a criminal offence has to disclose the factum of indictment. A technical objection based on the rejection order cannot be allowed to prevail in the face of the suppression of a most material fact, that is of an FIR pertaining to the construction of a bridge by UPSBC, which has collapsed."
W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 11 of 14This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00
14. In the aforenoted case, the Supreme Court has emphasised that owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It has also been held that the Court must defer to the understanding of clauses in tender documents by the author thereof unless, there is perversity in the author's construction of the documents or mala fides. However, at the same time the Court acknowledged that where there is a format which had to be strictly complied with, a party was justified in going by the literal reading of the aforesaid format. In the instant case, the language of the format and accompanying note, seemingly restricts disclosure to "criminal" investigations by an 'investigating agency'. Therefore, a bidder who follows that literal interpretation cannot be faulted for not volunteering ancillary or purely administrative proceedings. If Respondent No. 1 intended the term "investigating agency" to encompass other forms of inquiry, they should have said so explicitly. Therefore, the contentions urged by Mr. Nayar that the requirement under the bid documents of furnishing an affidavit has to be understood with respect to the criminal investigation for which they had made full disclosure, is indeed a plausible one. In these circumstances, further probe is required, and parties should maintain status quo.
15. The specific clauses, relied upon by Respondent No.1, for the Impugned action, read as follows:
"5.7. Corrupt or Fraudulent practices:
CESL requires that bidders observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and execution of such contracts. In pursuance of this policy, CESL: defines, for the purposes of this provision, the terms set W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 12 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00 forth below as follows:
a. i) "corrupt practice" means the offering, giving, receiving or soliciting of anything of value to influence the action of a public official in the procurement process or in contract execution; and
ii) "fraudulent practice" means a misrepresentation of facts in order to influence a procurement process or the execution of a contract to the detriment of CESL, and includes collusive practice among bidders (prior to or after bid submission) designed to establish bid prices at artificial noncompetitive levels and to deprive CESL of the benefits of free and open competition;
b) will reject a proposal for award if it determines that the bidder recommended for award has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for the contract in question;
c) will declare a firm ineligible, either indefinitely or for a stated period of time, to be awarded a contract if it at any time determines that the firm has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for, or in executing, a contract of the CESL."
16. Section 16.2 of Vol I of Section IV of the RfP reads as follows:
"CESI reserves the right to reject any Bid or take other administrative action if
(i) At any time, a material misrepresentation is made or uncovered, or
(ii) The Bidder does not provide, within the time specified by CESI, the supplemental Information sought by the Authority for evaluation of the Bid.
(iii) Such misrepresentation/ improper response shall lead to the disqualification of the Selected Bidder. If the Selected Bidder is a Consortium, then the entire Consortium may be disqualified/ rejected. If such disqualification/ rejection occurs after the Bids have been opened and the lowest Bidder gets disqualified/rejected, then CESL reserves the right to annul the Bidding Process and invite fresh Bids*"
17. Section 7.9(e) of Instructions to Bidders, reads as follows:
" The EMD of a Bidder shall be forfeited in the following W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 13 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00 events:
(e) Bidders submitting any wrong information or making any misrepresentation in their Bid as per the RfP terms."
18. The aforenoted clauses indeed create rights in favour of Respondent No.1 to take action in case of breaches on the part of the bidder. However, the fundamental question posed before the Court is whether there is indeed a non-disclosure on the part of the Petitioner having regard to the specific language of the bid documents. In the opinion of the Court, the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim stay.
19. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, no contract shall be finalized for 765 buses for which the Petitioner's bid was being evaluated.
20. Counter affidavit, if not filed, be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
21. Renotify on 30th January, 2025.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 20, 2024 as W.P.(C) 17199/2024 Page 14 of 14 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/01/2025 at 00:03:00