Delhi High Court - Orders
Bls International Services Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 September, 2020
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6650/2020 and CM No.23161/2020 (interim relief)
BLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Parag Tripathi, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Tanmaya Mehta,
Mr.Naman Joshi, Mr.Tarun Singla, Ms.Samprikta
Ghosal, Ms.Meera Menon, Mr.Deepanshu
Choithani and Mr.Shailesh Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through:Mr.Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, Mr.Sahaj Garg, Mr.R.V.Prabhat and Mr.Amit Gupta, Advocates for UOI.
Ms.Maninder Acharya, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Viplav Acharya, Mr.Krishnesh Bapat, Mr.Shikhar Kishore, Mr.Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr.Samar Kachwaha, Ms.Shivangi Nanda and Mr.Nikhil Bamal, Advocates for R3.
Mr.Tanmay Mehta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD OR D E R % 24.09.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING. W.P.(C) 6650/2020 Page 1 of 4
1. This order is in continuation of the order passed on 18.09.2020, extracted below:-
"W.P.(C) 6650/2020 & CM 23161/2020 (Interim relief)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a communication dated 12.9.2020, issued by the respondents No.1 and 2 informing it that it has been technically disqualified on account of its bid being non-responsive in respect of the project of outsourcing services related to VISA/OCI/Passport services etc. at the Embassy of India, Washington (DC), USA.
2. Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that none of the three deficiencies mentioned in the impugned communication are mandatory in nature for the respondent No.1/UOI and respondent No.2 to have taken such an extreme step of disqualifying the petitioner technically and declining to open its financial bid.
3. The aforesaid submission is vehemently opposed by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and by Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3, whose financial bid was opened on 11.9.2020. Ms. Acharya, learned Senior Advocate states on instructions that the financial bid of the respondent No.3 was opened but it has not been declared L-1 so far. Pertinently, there are only two bidders in respect of the subject tender i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.3.
4. In our opinion, it would be appropriate if the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to open the financial bid of the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents only to inform the court as to whether the petitioner's financial bid is lower than that of the respondent No.3. If not, no further orders would be required on the writ petition. Mr. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for W.P.(C) 6650/2020 Page 2 of 4 the petitioner agrees that if the petitioner's financial bid is found to be higher than that of the respondent No.3 then, nothing further would survive in the present writ petition. Otherwise, this court may hear submissions on admission on the next date.
5. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, respondents No.1 and 2 shall open the financial bid of the petitioner and on the next date, inform the court as to its status vis-a-vis the financial bid of the respondent No.3.
6. List on 24.9.2020."
2. Today, Mr.Chetan Sharma, learned ASG states on instructions from Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 that the financial bids of both the parties were opened in terms of the directions issued by this court on 22.09.2020, in the office of the Ministry of External Affairs at Delhi where representatives of both the parties were physically present and the Technical Evaluation Committee constituted by the respondent No.2 was virtually present, having logged in from Washington, USA. On opening the financial bid, the parties were informed that the respondent No.3's bid was found to be lower than that of the petitioner. We may add here that the aforesaid procedure was adopted in exceptional circumstances as learned ASG had intimated this court that there was an urgency in the matter since the contract in question was required to be executed by 31.10.2020
3. In view of the fact that on the last date of hearing the petitioner had agreed that if its financial bid is found to be higher than that of the respondent No.3, then nothing further would survive in the present petition, W.P.(C) 6650/2020 Page 3 of 4 the present petition is disposed of as infructuous alongwith the pending applications without making any observations on the merits of the case set up by the petitioner.
HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 tr W.P.(C) 6650/2020 Page 4 of 4