Gujarat High Court
Shimnit India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 23 January, 2023
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh Shastri
C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17445 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17448 of 2022
==================================================
SHIMNIT INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance in SCA/17445/2022:
MR. AMAN PREET SINGH, ADVOCATE with MR. BHAVESH B. CHOKSHI,
ADVOCATE for the petitioner(s) No.1,2
MR. K. M. ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in SCA/17448/2022:
MR. M. R. BHATT, ADVOCATE for M. R. BHATT & CO. for the
petitioner(s) No.1,2
MR. K. M. ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI
Date : 23/01/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI) [1] By way of these two petitions, petitioners have challenged certain clauses of tender document floated by respondent authority in the month of August, 2022. Since the nature of Page 1 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 challenge and the issue involved is common in nature and on request made by learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, they are taken up conjointly and for the sake of convenience since the controversy is identical, Special Civil Application No. 17445 of 2022 is treated as the lead matter. [2] Petitioners in this lead matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 17445 of 2022 we notice that petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and petitioner No.2 is an authorized Representative and Manager of Company. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all motor vehicles are required to be registered under the Act and motor vehicle is given registration mark by registering authority in view of Section 41(6) of the Act and the said registration mark is required to be displayed on the body of vehicle in view of the guidelines framed under Rule 50 read with 51 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. The Government of India has amended Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "CMV Rules") and notified vide Gazette Notification No.221(E) dated Page 2 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 28.03.2001 (with effect from 28.09.2001) to introduce High Security Registration Plate (HSRP) system in India, for all types of vehicles and according to petitioners, in furtherance of powers under Section 109(3) of the CMV Rules, the Central Government was also pleased to issue the order named as the Motor Vehicles (New High Security Registration Plate) Order, 2001 ("HSRP Order" hereinafter). The amended Rule 50 of the CMV Rules and the HSRP Order, 2001 constitutes the scheme named as HSRP Scheme. This scheme is prevailing right from the year, 2001 in various State Governments and all efforts were made to implement HSRP Scheme. The Hon'ble Apex Court in PIL No. W.P.(C) 510 of 2005 in the case of M.S. Bitta versus Union of India and Ors. was pleased to direct the State Governments to implement the scheme in its true spirit and various orders have been passed which would indicate the significance of HSRP Scheme and its implementation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also indicated in the judgment, how care has to be taken in respect of tender process of HSRP and how it has to be implemented across the country. Page 3 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [3] It is the case of the petitioners that in furtherance of this the Ministry of Roads Transport and Highway, Government of India had issued guidelines from time to time to the State Governments to introduce High Security Registration Plate for all types of vehicles in the States. In response to it, the State of Gujarat is also implementing HSRP Scheme for both new and old vehicles right from the year 2012. In order to streamline, the process of implementation of HSRP, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued notification G.S.R. 1162(E) dated 04.12.2018 amending Rule 50 of the CMV Rules, 1989 with effect from 01.04.2019. Further on 06.12.2018, Motor Vehicles (High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2018 was also introduced with effect from 01.04.2019. In view of this provision, Clause 4 of the order provides HSRP for new vehicle sold on or after 01.04.2019 has to be supplied by Vehicle Manufacturing Company and reading of this Clause 4, according to petitioner, is clear that a vehicle manufacturer has to supply the type approved HSRP to its dealers for affixing it in all new vehicles purchased on or after 01.04.2019. For this purpose, Vehicle Manufacturer has to purchase these HSRPs from Page 4 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) i.e. Type Approved Certificate Holders, like petitioner company, if the vehicle manufacturer does not hold a Type Approved Certificate for manufacture of the HSRP.
[4] It is the case of the petitioners that though vehicle manufacturing companies are bestowed with the responsibility of HSRP supply for all new vehicles sold on or after 01.04.2019 by procuring from the approved companies, same was not satisfactorily worked. Petitioner being OEM is supplying HSRP to various vehicle manufacturing Companies in various states like Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya, which, in turn, sends it to the dealers for affixing on the vehicles in accordance with the HSRP Rules. Clause 5 of the order 2018 provides HSRP for new vehicle sold on or after 01.04.2019 and as such though the dealer of vehicle manufacturing companies is bestowed with responsibility of HSRP supply for all existing vehicles sold even before 01.04.2019, but same has to be fulfilled by such dealers of Vehicle Manufacturing Companies by procuring HSRPs from Page 5 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 Original Equipment Manufacturers i.e. Type Approved Certificate holders like the petitioner company. By virtue of Clause 5(ii) of HSRP Order, 2018, the State Government is authorized to enter into contract with manufacturer of HSRP by publishing appropriate tender. According to petitioners, such tender or the condition therein cannot make any OEM ineligible to participate in a tender issued under Clause 5(ii) when the very same OEM is eligible and is supplying HSRPs to vehicle manufacturing Companies and Dealers of the vehicle manufacturing companies. Thus the OEM of HSRPs, who are manufacturing and supplying HSRP to vehicle manufacturing companies are equally eligible to supply of HSRP to the State Government both under Clauses 5(i) and 5(ii) of the Order, 2018.
[5] It is the case of the petitioners that in furtherance of this, respondent State Government issued a tender i.e. Commissioner of Transport, Government of Gujarat, Ports & Transport Department, Gandhinagar, Gujarat on 12.08.2022 in view of Clause No.5(ii) of HSRP Order, 2018. According to the petitioners, two conditions are in the nature of avoiding Page 6 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 competition and are unreasonable and arbitrary and to facilitate few companies who participate in tender and to oust many others, including the petitioners and as such the petitioners challenge the Conditions 2(B)(q) and 2(B)(s) of the impugned tender dated 12.08.2022, the relevant portion thereof reads as under:-
"2(B) Project Experience of the Bidder:
q) The Bid of any Bidder or any of eligible member of consortium who has been terminated / blacklisted / debarred by any of the State Transport Departments in India pertaining to the HSRP scheme shall be summarily rejected.
s) The Type Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (COP) of the Bidder should never have been cancelled or suspended by the issuing authority from the date of issuance till the bid submission date. An affidavit to this effect shall be submitted by the Bidder."
[6] It is the case of the petitioners that tender Condition 2(B)
(q) read above, there is no time period i.e. within which period the event of termination / blacklisting / debarring ought not to have occurred and by adding this impugned clause without any Page 7 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 limitation, the State Government can oust an OEM from participating in the tender for all time to come, who is otherwise manufacturing and supplying HSRPs in other states, which is not permissible. In addition to this, the said tender provides terminated bidders alongwith blacklisted and debarred bidders which may not have same nexus or reason for occurrence. A contract can be terminated for various reasons, but all such contractors may not be blacklisted or debarred since blacklisting and debarring is altogether a different action and as such according to petitioners, the clause is completely vague, which is in the nature of limiting the healthy competition and excluding a particular OEM like petitioner from the bidding process, who is otherwise eligible to bid under Clause 5(ii) of the HSRP Order, 2018.
[7] Similarly in tender Condition 2(B)(s), as indicated above, there is no time limit within which period the event of cancellation or suspension of Type Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (COP) of the bidder ought not to have occurred and by inserting this impugned clauses, the State Page 8 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 Government can oust an OEM from participating in the tender for all time to come and as such also it is impermissible. By raising multiple contentions and detailing out factual details, petitioner has submitted that petitioner is OEM and presently working in five (5) states as indicated in paragraph 3.9 on RTO Model i.e. where HSRP implementation (Old) is being implemented. However, in view of Conditions 2(B)(q) & (s) of tender in question, petitioner is ousted from bidding process in Gujarat State on a simple ground that its earlier / other tender contract has been terminated or on the ground that its Type Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (COP) has been suspended in a particular State. It has been submitted that State Government contracts of Rajasthan, Karnataka, Goa, UP of the petitioner were terminated somewhere in the year 2006. Though such terminations were for a limited period, which period has already elapsed and thereafter, petitioner was qualified OEM and has been supplying HSRPs in many States of India as also to vehicle manufacturers, yet considering the fact that petitioner was suspended by Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), due to such suspension though for a period of Page 9 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 24 hours only, petitioner would not qualify for tender in question issued by the respondent and as such petitioner being OEM, which is otherwise eligible both under Clauses 4 and 5(i) of HSRP Order, 2018 cannot be treated as not eligible under Clause 5(ii) by a tender condition prescribed by the State Government and cannot act in countenance or de hors what is provided under the Rules and cannot create an impermissible distinction or discrimination amongst the equals. The tender process has been scheduled in the manner in which it has been provided in paragraph 3.11 and as such said tender conditions stipulated in the bid documents, the actions of State authority are wholly untenable, unreasonable, tailor made to favour some of the bidders and left with no other alternate, petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and they have sought for the following reliefs:-
"8.(A) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Clauses being clause 2B(q) and 2B(s) of the Tender Document for Selection of Supplier for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Project I in the State Page 10 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 of Gujarat floated by Respondent Commissioner of Transport, State of Gujarat on 08.2022 (ANNEXURE-P1) or an order directing the Respondent Government of Gujarat to delete or suitably amend the said impugned clauses so as to remove the bar of eligibility of bidders, as has been created by virtue of the said clauses; and (B) Pending disposal of the above writ petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings in connection with the Tender / Bid Document for Selection of Supplier for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Project-I floated on 08.2022 by the respondent Commissioner of Transport, State of Gujarat, in the interest of justice and equity;
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to submit its bid in respect of the Tender / Bid Document for Selection of Supplier for High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) Project-I floated on 08.2022 and further be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law;
(C) An ex-parte and interim relief in terms of Para (b) above may kindly be granted.
(D) Pass such other orders, directions, writ etc., as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."
Page 11 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [8] In cognate petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.17448 of 2022 the petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company, having its registered office at Gandhinagar and is in the business of supply for High Security Registration Plates requirements brought about by virtue of amendment to Rule 50 of the CMV Rules as indicated in the lead petition. Whereas petitioner No.2 is the authorized Director who is a citizen of India. The background of facts of this petition is that respondent in May, 2011 had floated a tender for "Selection of Supplier for High Security Registration Plates in State of Gujarat" and that was in furtherance of project to be implemented on "Build, Own and Operate (BOO)" basis. The selected bidder was supposed to assemble, establish, procure technology, design, develop, produce, emboss, affix and distribute the HSRP and other incidental work. This tender was floated by the respondent to keep in line with the order from Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi Gazette Notification dated 28.03.2001 and many others, which basically required ensuring uniformity in size, colour and specifications of the Registration Plates all over India in all types of vehicles, being registered or already Page 12 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 registered. The estimated cost of project as mentioned under Clause 1.1.6 of the tender was stated to be Rs.500/- crores. The contract was to be awarded on concession basis, with the concession period being 15 years from the date of signing the concession agreement. Clause 1.3.1 stated that period of 15 years was extendable by a further period of 5 years in the event respondent was satisfied with the concessionaire's performance. Clause 2.2 of the tender which talks about "Eligibility of Bidders", the Technical and Project Experience required from bidder was specified, which in the petitioners' submission was extremely competitive considering the project cost to be Rs.500/- crores. A perusal of the condition, according to petitioners, would reveal that idea of the respondent was to thrash out "fly-by-night" bidders and to receive the bids only from genuine bidders, who are both technically and commercially qualified.
[9] It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of such stringent requirements, petitioner No.1 was adjudged as eligible bidder and pursuant to which a concession agreement was Page 13 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 executed on 26.05.2012 for a period of 10 years. In addition to the other requirements, the scope of project as defined under Clause 2.1 required the petitioner No.1 to set up atleast 1 manufacturing plates in the State of Gujarat capable enough to meet the requirement of HSRP in Gujarat and set up atleast 4 individualization stations one for each zone in the area for performing embossing and other individualization procedures and setting up affixing stations at RTO / ARTO premises. Clause 3.2 indicates that period of concession was 10 years, with an extension of 5 years possible in the event respondent was satisfied with petitioner No.1's performance. Said concession agreement and the concession period therein was to expire on 25.05.2022 and as such before expiration of such period, petitioners wrote a letter on 09.03.2022 to the respondent informing that progress undertaken by petitioners post award of tender in the year 2011 they have installed a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility with production capacity of 50,000 plates per shift. The petitioner No.1 had also set up operations in 36 Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) across the State and employed in excess of 250 local manpower, thereby providing Page 14 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 ample employment as well and by projecting the same, petitioners requested to extend the concession period for a further period of 5 years. Despite the said request having been specifically made nothing was heard and yet another letter was written on 19.05.2022 to continue the period of 5 years since petitioner No.1 is functioning since about 10 years in the field. However, without granting any extension of 5 years, the respondent wrote a letter on 01.06.2022 and decided to extend the concession period only for 6 months or till the time a new bidder was selected pursuant to issuance of new tender by the respondent. Resultantly, in the event no bidder was selected by the respondent, the concession period was to extend upto 01.12.2022. This process was smoothly going on but in the meantime, petitioners came to know that respondent has chosen to float a new tender for "Selection of Supplier for High Security Registration Plates in State of Gujarat" in August, 2022 for vehicles registered in the State prior to 01.04.2019. The estimated project cost for the new tender was mentioned as Rs.26/- crores, with the concession period of 5 years, extendable by 2 years further. The said tender was floated by respondent Page 15 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 in August, 2022 and perusal of the said conditions being arbitrary, unworkable, unreasonable and with an intent to consciously oust the petitioners and the like companies, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, on 19.08.2022 several pre-bid queries were raised, as a result of this, a corrigendum was also issued on 29.08.2022 in which certain clarifications have been issued. However, none of the grievance voiced by the petitioners have been addressed and as such petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:-
"23.(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Tender Conditions No.2B(n) and (p) specified on Internal Page 17 of Tender floated in August, 2022 (Annexure-F to this petition) as being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting asdie the estimated project cost mentioned on Internal Page 12 of Tender floated in August, 2022 (Annexure-F to this Page 16 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 petition) since the same is not in conformity with the cost to be incurred by any bidder for the vehicles pending affixation and is thoroughly misleading and irrational;
(c) That pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the Petitioners by directing the Respondent to not proceed with the Tender floated in August, 2022 (Annexure-F to this petition) including but not limited to receiving any bids or taking any action post receipt of bids;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of Para(c) hereinabove;
(e) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award cost of the present petition to the Petitioners;
(f) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
[10] Both these petitions alongwith one another petition being Special Civil Application No.17431 of 2022 were requested to be heard together but in view of subsequent development, the said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2022 and as such the aforementioned two petitions are left out to be considered. During the course of submission, Mr. M. R. Bhatt, senior advocate appearing in Special Civil Application No.17448 Page 17 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 of 2022 has submitted additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioners and pleadings having been completed. Hence, this Court has taken up and considered it proper to deal with these two Special Civil Applications, namely, Special Civil Application Nos. 17445/2022 and 17448/2022.
[11] Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.17448 of 2022 has vehemently contended that two tender conditions which are mentioned and impugned in the petition are completely unreasonable, arbitrary and tailor made which has got the virtual effect of ousting the recognized company like petitioner. According to learned senior advocate, respondent being a instrumentality of state is expected to act fairly and reasonably while dealing with public contracts and as such the basic requirement of certificate from a government body or institution being done away which goes against the very principle. By referring to Clauses B (n) and (p) of the tender document of August, 2022, reflecting in internal page 17 of the document, has submitted that respondent has lowered down the Page 18 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 requirement of prior experience to participate in the bid to an extent that a bidder only requires to show that they have completed 2 lakh HSRP affixations in any 2 years starting from 2017 till 2023 and such clause is inserted assuming without commercial wisdom and even in that case to believe the bidder as genuine on the basis of "self-certification" which is a disturbing features and as such this Clause B which relates to project experience of bidder and Clause (p) which relates to proof to be submitted are the one which may not be germane to the object for which such an important work is to be undertaken. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that respondent has not taken into account any anticipated possible problems that might occur in case of a particular bidder, on the basis of "self certification" is selected and later on after award of work order it is discovered that such "self- certification" was false, the entire process of award of contract will have to be carried out once again, and it would result in waste of time and money. The basic requirement of having experience certificate from a Government institution or a recognized body should be reintroduced and same having not Page 19 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 been visible from the conditions engrafted in the tender are not only unreasonable but with an aim to favour somebody. [12] Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate has also submitted that respondent authority by floating tender has completely miscalculated the estimated project cost and has also lowered the financial requirement. By referring the information from page 216, 217 and 218 of the tender floated in August, 2022, it is submitted that there are approximately 2.51 crore vehicles registered till the year 2018, which means that the HSRP fitment needs to be carried out on this vehicle base. The data attached on internal page 218 clearly depicts that 1.66 crore vehicles registered prior to 31.03.2019 have already been fitted with HSRP. Hence, a balance of 86 lakh vehicles are still pending for affixation in the State. According to Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate considering the current HSRP weighted average price of Rs.255/- per set, the total estimated project cost for remaining vehicles comes to approximately Rs.215/- crores and not Rs.26/- crores as mentioned in the RFQ cum RFP document and as such tender which has been floated on the basis of condition is absolutely reflecting miscalculation, non- Page 20 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 application of mind and not in consonance with the requirement with still large in number. As a matter of fact, the turnover requirement specified in new tender is Rs.13/- crores, which turns out to be 50% of the estimated project cost. But the estimated project cost as per respondent's own calculation works out to be approximately Rs.215/- crores and as such there appears to be a complete go by to the CVC guidelines as well. According to Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate there is no good reason for respondent authority to reduce the annual turnover requirement from Rs.50/- crores to Rs.13/- crores whereas the networth requirement has been reduced to Rs. 5/- crores from earlier requirement of Rs.20/- crores for the same project in the State in the year 2011 and as such this would lead to a situation where several under-qualified bidders and fly-by- night operators will have a chance to enter into the tender process. It is in this background, Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate has submitted that tender conditions are absolutely unreasonable, reflects miscalculation and clear non-application of mind. Hence, the reliefs prayed for deserves to be granted in the interest of justice and in particular tender Conditions Page 21 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 No.2B(n) and (p) of August, 2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable and has also prayed for consequential reliefs to be granted. [13] Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate then relying upon the additional affidavit has submitted that extension details which have been published on the website is also unwarranted particularly after the first extension, the respondent authority extended the time limit for submitting bids once again till 21.09.2022 by 3 P.M. but in this process, the extension was granted after expiry of the previous time limit i.e. 13.09.2022 and as such aggrieved by the action of respondent authority Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate has requested the Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.
[14] Mr. Bhatt, learned senior advocate with a view to substantiate his contention has relied upon two decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Association of Registration Plates versus Union of India and Others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679 and in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta versus Vijay Chhibber and Others reported in (2016) 14 SCC 72. Page 22 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [15] In respect of Special Civil Application No.17445 of 2022, Mr. Aman Preet Singh, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Bhavesh B. Chokshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has adopted the submissions of Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate and has reiterated that impugned conditions are bad- in-law and petitioner may be allowed to participate in the bid process as his case is likely to be different from the other one. It has also been contended that in respect of a tender floated by a public authority, the judicial review is always available by the constitutional courts and by referring to the decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular versus Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, a contention is raised that this is a fit case to exercise and undertake judicial review of the process of tender.
[16] Mr. Singh, learned advocate has submitted that tender conditions impugned in the petition are absolutely unjust and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and the authorities are required to be directed to re-looked same before finalizing the process. It is submitted that it is trite law that every action of Page 23 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 the authority which is in conflict with fundamental rights of the citizens as enshrined under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, it is the duty of the Court to examine and correct the action sought to be initiated by an authority. Mr. Singh, learned advocate has submitted that in so far as his petition is concerned, two conditions, namely, Condition Nos. 2B(q) and 2B(s) are unreasonable and thereby he has sought for a direction to the State Government to delete such conditions and suitably amend the said impugned clauses so as to remove the bar of eligibility of bidders. Hence, he submits said conditions are required to be quashed and set aside. No other submissions have been made.
[17] Mr. K. M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on advance copy and waiving notice in these petitions has vehemently contended that petitioners have not made out any case to declare such conditions as bad-in-law in any form. On the contrary, looking to the work and the requirement of such implementation of HSRP Scheme, the State floated a tender and he has emphatically submitted that it is the Page 24 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 discretion of the tender inviting authority to frame any eligibility clause, which may be required for the work to be done and on account of certain clauses or conditions of the tender are not being convenient to the petitioners, same cannot be questioned in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. However, while opposing the petitions has submitted that it is settled position of law that in respect of prescription of condition of tender document, the Court should be loathe in interfering and has prayed for dismissal of these petitions in limine. However, on instructions has has made a statement that final bid would not be opened till the next date of hearing.
[18] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on records, it appears that respondent authority has through its ports and transport department intending to invite applications for awarding the project through an open competitive bidding process. In order to ensure uniformity in size, colour and specifications of the Registration Plates all over India to all types of vehicles being registered or those already registered, Page 25 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 the specifications of plates on different types of vehicles have been laid down as per Rule 50 and 51 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and the scope of work will broadly include finance, manufacture, supply, implement, develop and market the High Security Registration Plates Project in the State of Gujarat and warranty and replacement thereof. The number plates would be required to be supplied from all RTO premises, as notified from time to time by the State Government and the estimated cost of the project is stated to be 26 crores throughout the concession period. The assessment of actual costs, however, will have to be made by the bidders. The project implementation mechanism is also provided in the tender notice and concession period is also stipulated to be that of five (5) years from the date of signing of the concession agreement and in the event of authority being satisfied, it can extend such period of maximum of two (2) years on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. The bidding process has also been stipulated and the eligibility criteria of bidders is prescribed under Clause 2 of the said tender.
Page 26 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [19] In addition to other clauses, contained in eligibility, as stipulated under Clause 2(A), the aggrieved conditions in both these petitions are as under:
(i) Aggrieved conditions in Special Civil Application No.17448 of 2022:-
"2.B. Project Experience of Bidder:-
n) The Bidder or any of eligible member of consortium shall have minimum 2 (two) lacs High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) manufactured, individualized and affixed in any of 2 (two) years out of 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 in India as on last date of submission of bids.
p) Proof to be submitted: The volume
authorization certificate should be signed by the
authorized signatory of the company or the Director and in case of Government should be signed by an officer not inferior to the rank of Joint Commissioner or equivalent."
(ii) Whereas following conditions are the subject matter of controversy in Special Civil Application No.17445 of 2022:-
Page 27 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023
C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 "2(B) Project Experience of the Bidder:
q) The Bid of any Bidder or any of eligible member of consortium who has been terminated / blacklisted / debarred by any of the State Transport Departments in India pertaining to the HSRP scheme shall be summarily rejected.
s) The Type Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (COP) of the Bidder should never have been cancelled or suspended by the issuing authority from the date of issuance till the bid submission date. An affidavit to this effect shall be submitted by the Bidder."
[20] The aforesaid conditions are stated to be unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational according to the petitioners and they have requested this Court to set aside the same. [21] The project experience of bidder, which have been stipulated by the tender inviting authority contains several conditions / criteria and one of such condition as stated hereinabove is said to be arbitrary. However, it is the tender inviting authority which has domain over such prescription of condition having regard to the significance of it and the scope of work. From the case papers, it appears that by virtue of Rule 50 Page 28 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 of CMV Rules, 1989 and in the process of its implementation thereof, the State Government appears to have taken an initiative from the year 2012 and High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) being installed in the vehicle by respective OEMs from 01.04.2019 and as such having found that certain vehicles are still to be covered even in respect of vehicles registered prior to 01.04.2019 and to meet with the said requirement, present tender appears to have been floated and scope of work is completely in consonance with the object for which the relevant Rules 1989 and the Motor Vehicles (High Security Registration Plates) Order, 2018 came to be incorporated. The requirement of the project is that person implementing will have to assemble, establish, procure technology, design, develop, produce, emboss, affix and distribute the HSRP and finance, maintain and operate the infrastructure formalities, services and establishment so created at his own risk and all costs involved in establishing embossing stations, site implementation and networking within the State, will have to be borne by the bidder himself and keeping in view such requirement, the authority concerned has issued a tender inviting open bid and Page 29 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 as such prima facie when these conditions as prescribed are perused keeping in view the importance and the object of work to be undertaken for the vehicles which are left out from installation of such HSRPs, this Court is of the view that tender inviting authority would be suitable person to prescribe as to what would be the condition based on appropriate requirement and it should be left to said authority to prescribe the condition for eligibility for such tender work as the tender inviting authority would be the best person to understand and evaluate the necessity of such conditions and merely because some conditions are not convenient to the petitioners, same cannot be held to be either unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary. This view gets support from catena of decisions wherein it has been held that it is the tender inviting authority which is the best person to fix the conditions depending upon its own requirement. Hence, unless and until, same is found to be absolutely arbitrary or infringing fundamental rights normal trend is not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction or disturb the need based requirement of an authority in fixing the conditions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Page 30 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 Limited versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818 has held:-
"15. We may add that the 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. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given."
Hence, we are of the view that in the absence of malice or in the absence of any mala fides attributable to respondent, the conditions which are mentioned under the impugned tender do not call for interference and it would not be the function of the Court to sit over in judgment as an expert over the requirement of tender inviting authority and substitute the conditions as tried to be projected by the petitioners. Hence, we see no reason to accept the stand of the petitioners. Page 31 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [22] Apart from that a bare look at the requirement prescribed in the tender, which is being agitated by the petitioners as onerous is also not possible to be accepted as arbitrary. Clause 2(B)(n) prescribed that bidder or any eligible member of consortium should have minimum 2 (two) lacs High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) manufactured, individualized and affixed in any of 2 (two) years out of 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-23 in India as on last date of submission of bids. This condition which is canvassed as irrational on the contrary is giving rather more scope to eligible bidders to participate in the process. The condition would meet the test of healthy competition amongst the bidders and has got apparently the effect of preventing concentration of work in few hands and apparent look at this condition would not reflec any irrationality or arbitrariness in any form in the considered opinion of this Court and as such we see no reason to hold such condition as bad-in-law in any form.
[23] Same is the case with Condition No.2(B)(p) which is requiring a proof to be submitted by the bidder. This condition Page 32 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 No.(p) indicates the authorization certificate should be signed by the authorized signatory of the company or the Director as the case may be and such authorization to be submitted along with the bid. The apprehension which has been voiced out by the petitioners' counsel that in case such authorization if found to be incorrect or false, the same would lead to unnecessary wastage of time and money but then looking to the other conditions of the tender, which reflects checks and balances would clearly indicate that such apprehension of the petitioners is misplaced. There are certain clauses in the tender where verification mechanism is provided, in which authority has reserved its right to verify all statements and information including the documents and if at any time the authority found such information being false or fabricated absolute right is vested with the authority to reject the bid and to take consequential steps against such bidder as can be seen from "verification and disqualification chapter" reflecting on page 279 of Special Civil Application No.17448 of 2022.
Page 33 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [24] Apart from this, we have noticed that even for fraud and corrupt practice, if any, adopted by a bidder or its officers, employees or agents etc. a specific consequence that would follow has also been provided under this very tender document and as such the apprehension which has been voiced out by the learned counsel representing petitioners of Special Civil Application No.17448 of 2022 is clearly misplaced and merely because said clauses of the tender are not convenient to the petitioners, this Court cannot embark upon setting aside the same which petitioners are seeking. This apprehension which has been voiced out has also little history behind it as can be seen from paragraph 12 of the petition itself. The chronology which has been mentioned by the petitioners about its tenure of 10 years being lapsed and the extension which has been sought for and dealt with by the authority speaks volumes about it and as such when this is the factual background of petitioners' the contentions raised by learned advocate appearing for petitioners is not worthy of acceptance. Hence, we deem it proper not to entertain the stand of petitioners. Page 34 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 [25] In so far as, it relates to Special Civil Application No.17445 of 2022 in which Condition Nos.2(B)(q) and (s) has been questioned, same is also not worthy to be examined. This Condition Nos 2(B)(q) would indicate that the bid of any bidder or any of eligible member of consortium who has been terminated / blacklisted / debarred by any of the State Transport Departments in India pertaining to the HSRP scheme would be summarily rejected. The importance and significance of this scope of work is very much reflecting from rules itself and the chronology of the litigation related to it and as such when the question of High Security Registration Plates is kept in mind by the authority, this clause reflecting in the tender document cannot be said to be either irrational or irrelevant. In such an important tender if any bidder is found to be debarred in any related work by any of the Transport Department in the India, it is obvious for the authority to prescribe such condition which would restrict such person from participating. Again we reiterate at the cost of repetition that prescription of condition in a tender is the domain of tender inviting authority and when we look at the history of this project being implemented by the Page 35 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 State across the India is pursuant to the PIL No. W.P.(C) 510 of 2005 dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 08.05.2008 and it would clearly indicate that significance of the work for which the tender is floated. The history relating to implementation of HSRP Scheme needs to be quoted hereunder and as such without much elaboration on it, we may prefer to refer the chronology of decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various proceedings related to this very issue, which are mentioned by the petitioners themselves. The following is the chart, we may deem it proper to quote hereunder:-
Sl. No Particulars
1. Judgment and order dated 08.05.2008 passed in W.P(C) No. 510 of 2005 by this Hon'ble Court titled M.S. Bitta Vs. Union of India and Ors; Reported in :
(2008) 7 SCC 328
2. Judgment and order dated 07.04.2011 passed in I.A Nos. 10 and 11 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 510 of 2005 by this Hon'ble Court; Reported in : (2011) 11 SCC 315
3. Order dated 30.08.2011 passed in I.A Nos. 10 - 11 of 2010 in I.A No. 10 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 510 of 2012 by this Hon'ble Court; Reported in : (2011) 14 SCC 273
4. Order dated 13.10.2011 passed in I.A No. 10 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 510 of 2005; Reported in : (2012) 1 SCC 273
5. Order dated 08.12.2011 passed in I.A Nos. 10, 16, 17 & 18 in W.P.(C) No. 510 of 2005; Reported in : (2012) 1 SCC 707
6. Judgment dated 07.02.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 510 of 2005; Reported in : (2012) 4 SCC 568 Page 36 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023
7. Judgment dated 13.07.2016 in C.P(C) 483 of 2013 titled as Maniderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Vijay Chhibber; Reported in : (2016) 14 SCC 72 [26] From the aforesaid chronology of orders also, we are of the clear opinion that when such important work is to be undertaken by the State Government, this clause which has been incorporated in the tender cannot be said to be either unjust or arbitrary or irrational in any form and we are not inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioners in this regard. Yet another clause which has been tried to be assailed in Special Civil Application No.17445 of 2022 is Condition 2(B)
(s). A plain reading of this clause itself would make it clear that same cannot be said to be arbitrary. The Type Approval Certificate (TAC) and Conformity of Production (COP) of the bidder should never have been cancelled or suspended by the issuing authority from the date of issuance till bid submission date was required be stated by an affidavit by the bidder. We are at loss to understand as to how such stipulation would cause inconvenience to the petitioners or same being onerous. The reason appears to be obvious that petitioners had some issue Page 37 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 with respect to its suspension of TAC as has been reflecting from the averment contained in paragraph 3.9 (later part of page 14 of the petition). Merely because such situation is being fixed by the petitioners, we cannot assume that Condition No.2(B)(s) can be said to be arbitrary in any form. Hence, on conjoint reading of these clauses of tender document, we are of the clear opinion that none of the impunged conditions can be said to be irrational, arbitrary or violative of any fundamental right of the petitioners in any form. Be that as it may. We reiterate that fixation of tender clauses are the domain of tender inviting authority and constitutional Courts cannot embark upon conducting roving inquiry. Whether such condition could have been incorporated by the tender inviting authority unless it is palpably found to be irrational, which is not the case here on hand. Hence, we see no reason to accept the contention of the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are found to be meritless. [27] Additionally, at this stage, we are mindful of the clear proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions about the scope of interference in tender Page 38 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 and contractual matters more particularly in respect of litigation questioning the tender conditions. Since we are of the opinion that scope is very very limited, we deem it proper to quote relevant observations of respective decisions hereunder:-
(i) In the case of Central Coalfields Limited and Another versus SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"49. Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the Courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and non-essential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby re-write the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that "Any Bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive."
Surely, CCL ex facie intended this term to be mandatory, yet the High Court held that the bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it ought to be accepted since that requirement was a non-essential term of the GTC. From the point of view of CCL the GTC has been impermissibly re-written by the High Court.
Page 39 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023
52. There is a wholesome principle that the Courts have been following for a very long time and which was articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor10 namely "....Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."
There is no valid reason to give up this salutary principle or not to apply it mutatis mutandis to bid documents. This principle deserves to be applied in contractual disputes, particularly in commercial contracts or bids leading up to commercial contracts, where there is stiff competition. It must follow from the application of the principle laid down in Nazir Ahmed that if the employer prescribes a particular format of the bank guarantee to be furnished, then a bidder ought to submit the bank guarantee in that particular format only and not in any other format. However, as mentioned above, there is no AIR 1936 PC 253 inflexibility in this regard and an employer could deviate from the terms of the bid document but only within the parameters mentioned above.
53. Nazir Ahmed has been followed in dozens of decisions rendered by this Court and by other constitutional Courts in the country. The Central Vigilance Commission has accepted this principle in a modified form as a guiding principle in its circular dated 31st December, 2007 wherein it is mentioned that all organizations ought to Page 40 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 evolve a procedure for acceptance of bank guarantees that is compatible with the guidelines of banks and the Reserve Bank of India. One such requirement is that the bank guarantee should be in a proper prescribed format and should be verified verbatim on receipt with the original. Adherence to this principle of verbatim verification would not only avoid undue problems for the employer but would also virtually eliminate subjectivity on the part of the employer."
(ii) In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors versus Union of India and another reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of 12 2019 (6) SCALE 70 restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable Page 41 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer."
(iii) In the case of M/s N.G.Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, [Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022 decided on 21.03.2022], reported in 2022 (5) SCALE 105 it has been noticed by Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:
"22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while evaluating the consequences of non- performance. In the tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender conditions. The Page 42 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder.
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine the terms and conditions of the presentday economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine as to whether the decision-making process is after complying with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest. Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer Page 43 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023 C/SCA/17445/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 23/01/2023 twice, firstly by paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the infrastructure for which the present- day Governments are expected to work.
26. A word of caution ought to be mentioned herein that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing the entire process of the services meant for larger public good. The grant of interim injunction by the learned Single Bench of the High Court has helped no-one except a contractor who lost a contract bid and has only caused loss to the State with no corresponding gain to anyone."
[28] From the aforesaid observations in the context of fact situation prevailing on record and in consideration of contentions raised by learned advocates appearing for the petitioners, we are of the clear opinion that no case is made out by the petitioners calling for any interference. Hence, present petitions being devoid of merits, same stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated.
Sd/-
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.) Sd/-
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Page 44 of 44 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 25 20:44:35 IST 2023