Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bls International Services Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 2020

Author: Hima Kohli

Bench: Hima Kohli, Subramonium Prasad

$~04
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 6650/2020
      BLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD.            .... Petitioner
                   Through     Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
                   with Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta,
                   Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. Tarun
                   Singla, Ms. Samprikta Ghosal, Ms. Meera Menon,
                   Mr. Deepanshu Chothani and Mr. Shailesh
                   Pandey, Advocates.

                     versus
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          ..... Respondent
                     Through     Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
                     Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. R.V.
                     Prabhat and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocates for R-1
                     and R-2.
                     Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                     Raghvendra Mohan Bajaj, Mr. Samar Kachwaha,
                     Ms. Shivangi, Mr. Nikhil, Advocates for R-3.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
               ORDER

% 18.09.2020 HEARD THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING CM 23162/2020 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

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 W.P (C) 6650/2020 Page 1 of 3 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 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.

HIMA KOHLI, J SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 NA W.P (C) 6650/2020 Page 3 of 3