Delhi High Court - Orders
Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 June, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~DB-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8397/2025, CM APPL. 36537-38/2025
BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Sachdeva, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.
Vedansh Anand, G.P. and Mr. Sunil,
Advocate for UOI/R-1 & 2.
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Mr. Vinayak
and Mr. Amlaan, Advocates (Through
VC) for NSIC.
Mr. OP Gupta and Mr. Rajesh,
Officers-NSIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
ORDER
% 04.06.2025 CM APPL. 36538/2025 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8397/2025, CM APPL. 36537/2025 (stay)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-
"a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned rejection order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby W.P.(C) 8397/2025 Page 1 of 5 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 24/06/2025 at 12:09:37 the RFP bid submitted by the Petitioner has been rejected by Respondent no. 2;
b. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 2 to not proceed with the award of tender/issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of Respondent nos. 4 or 5, in furtherance of the subject RFP bearing number NSIC/PMV/2023-24/TAILOR/01(R4) dated 10.1.2025, till the present writ petition is adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court;
c. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent no. 2 to consider and accept the CA certified GST invoices, purchase orders, delivery reports and other documents submitted by the Petitioner through clarification dated 12.02.2025 and representation dated 22.04.2025, as relevant documents for work completion, as required under the RFP in the instant case;
d. Issue a writ Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Petitioner to be technically qualified for the Tender bearing NSIC/PMV/2023- 24/TAILOR/01(R4) dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2;
e. Issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Petitioner herein to be technically qualified for the RFP in question, bearing NSIC/PMV/2023-24/TAILOR/01(R4) dated 10.1.2025 issued by Respondent no. 2;
f. Alternatively, issue Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, cancelling and quashing the RFP bearing number NSIC/PMV/2023-24/TAILOR/01(R4) issued by Respondent no.2, for being conducted in a most arbitrary, biased and malafide manner by Respondent no. 2.;"
4. Mr. Mehrotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the order dated 06th May, 2025, this Court, in the previous litigation bearing W.P.(C) 6013 of 2025, had directed the respondents to take a decision on its representation dated 02nd May, 2025 and till such decision is taken, the respondent no.2 i.e. NSIC, was barred from granting a letter of award/ intent.
W.P.(C) 8397/2025 Page 2 of 5This 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 24/06/2025 at 12:09:37
5. Learned senior counsel submits that by order dated 30th May 2025, the said representation of the petitioner dated 02nd May, 2025 was disposed of rejecting the said representation. By referring to various paragraphs of the said rejection order, learned senior counsel submits that as per para 19, the scope of rejection has been altered from what it was originally proposed. Learned senior counsel submits that after extracting the table at para 18 of the number of units manufactured by the petitioner, the respondent Authority has now conjured a word, namely, "contract manufacturing" on behalf of USHA International, to discredit the petitioner and thereby adding an extraneous consideration for the original rejection which is impermissible.
6. Learned senior counsel invites attention of this Court to Clause 4.4 of the RFP, particularly to sub-clause (ii), to submit that the experience and past performance of the petitioner was to be evaluated in accordance with the form of CA certificate as per Annexure V. He submits that all the relevant documents along with the CA certificate was submitted by the petitioner with the respondent no.2/NSIC yet the original rejection order dated 22nd April 2025 was passed for the following reasons:-
"......Your bid is technically disqualified inter-alia due to following reasons. 1. Copies of relevant LoAs or work completion certificates in respect of Private or Institutional Sales mentioned in Annexure-V have not been provided. Insufficient experience as per the supporting documents submitted."
7. Dilating further on the said original rejection order, learned senior counsel submits that it was only on the basis that the petitioner had not submitted the copies of relevant LOAs or work completion certificates as required in Annexure V coupled with the allegation that there is insufficient W.P.(C) 8397/2025 Page 3 of 5 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 24/06/2025 at 12:09:37 experience as per the said supportive documents, the technical bid was disqualified.
8. Learned senior counsel submits that while deciding the representation dated 02nd May, 2025, the respondents have now relied upon extraneous considerations to reach the same conclusions. He submits that there is no dispute with the fact that the petitioner is an Original Equipment Manufacturer ('OEM') and it is the petitioner which is offering the manufactured machines to USHA International which was simply putting its brand name and selling it further. He also submits that so far as the present RFP is concerned, USHA International partnering with respondent no.4/NCCF is also a bidder in the present RFP itself and is one of the competitors.
9. He submits that there is clear bias against the petitioner.
10. Per Contra, Ms. Bobde, simply submits that apart from the detailed examination of the representation undertaken by the respondent no.2, the authority passed a detailed and reasoned order impugned herein. She also invites attention to the definition of the OEM which reads as under:-
"(vi) "OEM" (Original Equipment Manufacturer) - OEM is the owner of the Brand / Trademark of the product being offered or in case of un-
registered brand's products / products with own brand, the actual manufacturer of the final product."
Relying on the aforesaid definition, she emphasizes that petitioner does not fall within its ambit and is ineligible from participating in the bid process.
11. She also vehemently opposes the submissions made by Mr. Mehrotra, learned senior counsel, to the extent that she reiterates that the petitioners have failed to furnish the relevant LOAs or even work experience W.P.(C) 8397/2025 Page 4 of 5 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 24/06/2025 at 12:09:37 certificates, which was a mandatory condition of the RFP.
12. Be that as it may, on an overall appreciation of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the present petition requires consideration.
13. Issue notice.
14. Notice is accepted by learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
15. Issue notice to respondent nos. 3 to 6 through all modes upon the petitioner taking steps within a period of one week from today.
16. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of one week. Rejoinder, if any, be also filed before the next date of hearing.
17. List on 16th June, 2025 before the Vacation Bench.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J (VACATION JUDGE) HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J (VACATION JUDGE) JUNE 4, 2025/neha W.P.(C) 8397/2025 Page 5 of 5 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 24/06/2025 at 12:09:37