Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Stahl Cranesystems India P. Ltd vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr on 11 January, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh
$~13 & 14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & CM APPLs. 35899-35900/2021
M/S STAHL CRANESYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikas
Goel, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Ritesh
Sharma, Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Mr. Vivek
Gupta and Mr. Deepank, Advs.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Adv. for DMRC.
Ms. Suruchi Suri and Mr. Varun Singh
Thapa, Advs. for R-2.
14
+ W.P.(C) 11636/2021 & CM APPLs. 35949-35950/2021
M/S STAHL CRANESYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parag P Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Vikas Goel, Mr. Siddharth Pandey,
Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Mr.Ritesh Sharma,
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Ms.Mishika Bajpai and
Mr.Apoorva Tripathi, Advs.
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Adv. for DMRC.
Ms. Suruchi Suri and Mr. Varun Singh
Thapa, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 11.01.2022
1. These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, firstly, being aggrieved by the petitioner's technical disqualification by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 1 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 respondent- DMRC in the tender process and, secondly, by the Award of the contract to respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a technically qualified bidder, and has wrongly been held to be disqualified. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, the submission is that respondent No.2 was, in fact, technically disqualified, and hence could not have been awarded the contract.
2. We have heard learned senior counsels for the petitioners at a substantial length. We have also heard learned counsels for the respondent- DMRC and respondent No.2 for some time. We proceed to consider and deal with the issue, whether the petitioner's technical disqualification calls for interference in these proceedings. To consider the said issue, we may first refer to the tabulation contained in Clause 12(A) of the NIT. Clause 12 lays down the qualification requirements that the bidders should meet. This tabulation classifies the bidders into 4 classes. Clause 12 (A), in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:
"12. QUALIFYING REQUIREMENTS OF TENDERERS (A) Tender offer/bids submitted from manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of the manufacturer or authorized Indian channel partner of the manufacturer, shall only be considered for the purpose of evaluation. Also in addition to the categorisation of the supplier as either Class-I Local supplier, Class-II Local Supplier and Non Local Supplier (for the applicability of Make In India Order provisions) the suppliers shall also be classified as Class A, B, C of D for the purpose of applicability of Qualifying Requirements of tenders pertaining to them. The details of how the tenderer will be classified in this regard have been brought out in the table below:Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 2 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41
Class of Requirements for the Class Requirements for the Class Bidder Class A Category-A includes the bidders who are: In case if the Nodal Ministry has
-- Manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of the communicated sufficient Local manufacturer or authorized Indian channel capacity/competition for the item partner of the manufacturer, but the bidder fails to fulfill the minimum Local Content
-- who declare during tender submission to requirement to be classified as supply from their manufacturing plant in Class-I local supplier then he will India/outside India, and, not be eligible to participate in such tenders. For all the other
-- fulfill the Local Content requirement of at situations such bidders need to least Class-II local supplier, fulfill the qualifying eligibility criteria as stipulated in Col.- 3 of Table-1.0 below (if bidder fulfills requirement of Class-I Local Suppliers also then he shall also be eligible for purchase preference) Class B Category-B includes bidders who are: In all the cases where the Global Tender enquiries have not been
-- Manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of floated (and thus Non Local the suppliers are not eligible to manufacturer or authorized Indian participate), offers of such tenders channel will not be considered. For other partner of the manufacturer, cases such bidders need to fulfill the qualifying eligibility criteria as
-- who declare during tender submission to stipulated in Col.-4 of Table 1.0 supply from their manufacturing plant in India/outside India,
-- but do not fulfill the minimum Local Content criteria applicable for Class-II Local supplier, Class C Category-C includes bidders who are: Such Bidders need to fulfill the qualifying eligibility criteria as
-- Manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of the stipulated in Col.- 3 of Table 1.0 by manufacturer or Authorized Indian channel utilizing the credentials of the partner of the manufacturer, Foreign OEM with whom they have Technology Transfer Agreement /
-- who declare during tender submission to Technology collaboration Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 3 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 supply from their manufacturing plant in agreement / Licence Agreement (if India, and, bidder fulfills requirement of Class-
1 Local Suppliers also then he shall
-- do have tie-up with foreign manufacturer also be eligible for purchase for a valid technology transfer agreement preference) along with an undertaking from the above manufacturer that the process of In such cases, the bidder during bid manufacturing, testing & commissioning and submission itself, should also the corresponding quality assurance submit the details of the foreign program for all the above three activities of manufacturing plant (i.e. the city the machinery/ equipment/plant which is and the country of the similar to the one to be supplied for this manufacturing plant etc.) with tender from its proposed plant in India have which they claim to fulfill the been checked & validated by them, and also qualifying eligibility criteria an undertaking for an assurance from the stipulated in Col-3.0 of Table 1.0.
above manufacturer to provide the technical The qualifying eligibility criteria support for manufacturing, supply, testing , would thus be evaluated on the commissioning & after sales service up to the basis of considering the above end of Defect Liability Period (DLP), and, plant & its country as the country of origin. The disclosing of the
-- fulfill the Local Content requirement of at above foreign manufacturing plant least Class-II local supplier (as applicable would be in addition to the on date of submission of offer), but disclosing of the details of the manufacturing plant in India (i.e. the plant in India, in which the
-- do not have the credentials to meet the machinery/plant /equipment to be qualifying eligibility criteria stipulated in supplied through this tender would Col- 3 of Table-1.0 on their own, be actually manufactured).
Class D Category-D includes bidders who are: Such Bidders will be eligible to participate even if they are "Non
-- Manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of the Local" and the tender issued is not manufacturer or Authorized Indian channel a Global tender enquiry (if not for partner of the manufacturer, the technology transfer agreement.
Such bidders being "Non Local"
-- who declare during tender submission to would have become ineligible for supply from their manufacturing plant in participation in Non Global tender India, and, enquiry cases)
--do have tie-up with foreign manufacturer Such Bidders need to fulfill the for a valid technology transfer agreement qualifying eligibility criteria as along with an undertaking from the above stipulated in Col.- 4 of Table 1.0 by manufacturer that the process of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 4 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 manufacturing, testing & commissioning and utilizing the credentials of Foreign the corresponding quality assurance OEM with whom they have program for all the above three activities of Technology Transfer Agreement / the machinery/equipment/plant which is Technology collaboration similar to the one to be supplied for this agreement / License Agreement, tender from its proposed plant in India have been checked & validated by them, and also In such cases, the bidder during bid an undertaking for an assurance from the submission itself, should also above manufacturer to provide the technical submit the details of the foreign support for manufacturing, supply, testing, manufacturing plant (i.e. the city commissioning & after sales service up to the and the country of the end of Defect Liability Period (DLP), but manufacturing plant etc.) with which they claim to fulfill the qualifying eligibility criteria
-- but do not fulfill the minimum Local stipulated in Col-3.0 of Table 1.0.
Content criteria applicable for Class-II The qualifying eligibility criteria Local supplier (as applicable on date of would thus be evaluated on the submission basis of considering the above of offer), and also plant & its country as the country of origin. The disclosing of the
-- do not have the credentials to meet the above foreign manufacturing plant qualifying eligibility criteria spelt out in Col- would be in addition to the 4 of Table-1.0 on their own disclosing of the details of the manufacturing plant in India (i.e. the plant in India, in which the machinery/plant /equipment to be supplied through this tender would be actually manufactured).
Table-1.0 1.0(a) The bidder will declare during tender submission the details [like place/city and the country (i.e. country of origin)] of the manufacturing plant from which the machinery/plant/equipment would be supplied for orders placed through this tender. Thus, the bidder is bound to supply from the above declared manufacturing plant (i.e. the manufacturing plant from which the bidder is committing to manufacture the machinery/plant/plant/equipment to be supplied for orders placed through this tender), because evaluation of tender offer has been done on the basis of above disclosed details. No change in the above submitted manufacturing plant would be permitted after submission of tender offer.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 5 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41
1.0(b) The bidder would clearly submit a declaration in the Performa as Appendix-1 during tender submission as to under which of the category as detailed above, the bid is being submitted.
Thus, requisite documents/information should be submitted/disclosed with the bid submission for the above declared category by the bidder to enable proper evaluation of the submitted bid. It is to be noted that the bid would be evaluated only for the above declared category by the bidder and no change in this regard after tender opening is acceptable.
(Note: The above information is very vital & important, because the qualifying eligibility criteria for technical evaluation stipulated in table below would be evaluated considering the above submissions/declarations made by the bidder) 1.0(c) Each of the Qualifying Eligibility Criteria for Technical Evaluation depicted in below mentioned table needs to fulfilled / met by the supplier/bidder in order to successful in fulfilling/meeting the Qualifying Eligibility Criteria for Technical Evaluation Quantity Quantity Quantity To Be for for procured Category Category-
(No/sets) -A and B and
Category Category-
-C D Bidder
Bidder
Co1.1 CoI.2 CoI.3 CoI.4
1.1 Minimum Quantity to have been successfully 1-3 2 2
Supplied & Commissioned for similar
4-6 2 4
Machinery/Plant/Equipment (as defined in note-2) in the period of 10 years (as defined in Note-1) is >6 3 6 indicated in Col. 3 or Col. 4 of this sub-point 1.1of main point 1.0 (qualifying eligibility criteria) for the respective category of the bidder.
Note-1.1(a): The requirement of above minimum quantity can be fulfilled by anyone or all of the manufacturing plants of the bidder, irrespective of the location & country of the manufacturing plant from which supplies are being declared/committed for orders placed against this tender.
Note-1.1(b): For evaluation of this eligibility criteria, the bidder shall submit complete details of various orders like order no & order date, ordered quantity, details of buyer, quantity supplied & commissioned, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 6 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 date of supply & commissioning for each of the ordered quantity, name of plant city & country from which each of the above ordered quantity has been supplied, name of city & country with details of user & purchaser of each of the above ordered quantity along with Requisite supply & commissioning certificate from the user/purchaser of each of the above ordered quantity. 1.2 Out of the minimum Quantity mentioned in Col 3 or 1-3 1 1 Co1.4(depending upon the category of bidder) of sub-4-6 1 2
point 1.1 above of main point 1.0 (qualifying eligibility criteria), >6 1 3 Minimum quantity of similar machinery / plant / equipment which should have been supplied & commissioned during the specified period in the Country other than the country of origin (i.e. countries other than the country where the manufacturing plant through which supplies are committed to be made through this tender is located) or in India.
Note:1.2(a):For evaluation this eligibility criteria, The bidder shall submit details of various order No. with order date, ordered quantity, details of buyer, quantity supplied & commissioned, date of supply & commissioning for each of the ordered quantity, name of plant city & country from which each of the above ordered quantity has been supplied, name of city & country with details of user& purchaser of each of the above ordered quantity along with Requisite supply & commissioning certificate from the user/purchaser of each of the above ordered quantity.
1.3 Out of the minimum Quantity mentioned in Col 3 or Co1.4(depending upon the category of bidder) of sub- 1-3 1 1 point 1.1 above of main point 1.0 (qualifying eligibility criteria) of this table, The minimum number of similar machinery / equipment 4-6 1 2 / plant that should be in operation during the specified period with satisfactory performance for a minimum period of 365 days after commissioning is stipulated in >6 1 3 Col-3 or Col-4 (depending upon the category of /bidder) of sub-point 1.3 of main point 1.0 (qualifying eligibility criteria) of this table, The bidder should submit performance certificate from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 7 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 the purchaser/user for satisfactory operation of the machinery/equipment/plant in support of above.
Note-1.3(a): The requirement of above minimum quantity of submissions of performance certificates can be fulfilled by anyone or all of the manufacturing plants irrespective of the country of origin (i.e. the country where the manufacturing plant through which supplies are committed to be made through this tender is located).
(emphasis supplied)
3. The submission of Mr. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-bidder is an Indian subsidiary of a German manufacturer. He submits that the petitioner had submitted its bid seeking placement under Class/ Category-A. Here itself we may notice that Ms. Mahajan has drawn our attention to clauses of the tender document, which show that it is for the bidder to clearly state as to under which class/ category the bidder is applying, and the said class/ category cannot be changed once opted by the bidder. This position has not been disputed by the petitioner.
4. Mr. Tripathi has submitted that the expression "manufacturer or Indian subsidiaries of the manufacturer or authorized Indian channel partner of the manufacturer" used while describing Category-A bidders, obviously, means Indian subsidiaries of foreign manufacturers. There is no quarrel with the said proposition.
5. The column on the right side of the aforesaid tabulation enumerates "Requirements for the Class." In relation to Class-A/ Category-A bidders, the said requirement inter alia provides "For all the other situations such Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 8 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 bidders need to fulfill the qualifying eligibility criteria as stipulated in Col.- 3 of Table-1.0 below (if bidder fulfills requirement of Class-I Local Suppliers also then he shall also be eligible for purchase preference)".
(emphasis supplied)
6. The submission of Mr. Tripathi is that since the petitioner-bidder is an Indian subsidiary of a foreign manufacturer, the petitioner-bidder is entitled to rely upon both - the technical, and financial attainments and qualification of a foreign supplier. He, therefore, submits that if the technical and financial credentials of the petitioner's foreign supplier are taken into consideration, the petitioner would satisfy the eligibility criteria as stipulated in Column 3 of Table-1.0.
7. In support of this plea, Mr. Tripathi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Horizons Limited and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 1995 1 SCC 478 and in particular para 23 thereof which reads as follows:
"23. Even if it be assumed that the requirement regarding experience as set out in the advertisement dated 22-4-1993 inviting tenders is a condition about eligibility for consideration of the tender, though we find no basis for the same, the said requirement regarding experience cannot be construed to mean that the said experience should be of the tenderer in his name only. It is possible to visualise a situation where a person having past experience has entered into a partnership and the tender has been submitted in the name of the partnership firm which may not have any past experience in its own name. That does not mean that the earlier experience of one of the partners of the firm cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having past experience may undergo reorganisation Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 9 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 as a result of merger or amalgamation with another company which may have no such past experience and the tender is submitted in the name of the reorganised company. It could not be the purport of the requirement about experience that the experience of the company which has merged into the reorganised company cannot be taken into consideration because the tender has not been submitted in its name and has been submitted in the name of the reorganised company which does not have experience in its name. Conversely there may be a split in a company and persons looking after a particular field of the business of the company form a new company after leaving it. The new company, though having persons with experience in the field, has no experience in its name while the original company having experience in its name lacks persons with experience. The requirement regarding experience does not mean that the offer of the original company must be considered because it has experience in its name though it does not have experienced persons with it and ignore the offer of the new company because it does not have experience in its name though it has persons having experience in the field. While considering the requirement regarding experience it has to be borne in mind that the said requirement is contained in a document inviting offers for a commercial transaction. The terms and conditions of such a document have to be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. When a businessman enters into a contract whereunder some work is to be performed he seeks to assure himself about the credentials of the person who is to be entrusted with the performance of the work. Such credentials are to be examined from a commercial point of view which means that if the contract is to be entered with a company he will look into the background of the company and the persons who are in control of the same and their capacity to execute the work. He would go not by the name of the company but by the persons behind the company. While keeping in view the past experience he would also take note Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 10 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 of the present state of affairs and the equipment and resources at the disposal of the company. The same has to be the approach of the authorities while considering a tender received in response to the advertisement issued on 22-4-1993. This would require that first the terms of the offer must be examined and if they are found satisfactory the next step would be to consider the credentials of the tenderer and his ability to perform the work to be entrusted. For judging the credentials past experience will have to be considered along with the present state of equipment and resources available with the tenderer. Past experience may not be of much help if the machinery and equipment is outdated. Conversely lack of experience may be made good by improved technology and better equipment. The advertisement dated 22-4-1993 when read with the notice for inviting tenders dated 26-4-1993 does not preclude adoption of this course of action. If the Tender Evaluation Committee had adopted this approach and had examined the tender of NHL in this perspective it would have found that NHL, being a joint venture, has access to the benefit of the resources and strength of its parent/owning companies as well as to the experience in database management, sales and publishing of its parent group companies because after reorganisation of the Company in 1992 60% of the share capital of NHL is owned by Indian group of companies namely, TPI, LMI, WML, etc. and Mr Aroon Purie and 40% of the share capital is owned by IIPL a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore Telecom which was established in 1967 and is having long experience in publishing the Singapore telephone directory with yellow pages and other directories. Moreover, in the tender it was specifically stated that IIPL will be providing its unique integrated directory management system along with the expertise of its managers and that the managers will be actively involved in the project both out of Singapore and resident in India."
8. On the other hand, Ms. Mahajan has pointed out that a close scrutiny Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 11 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 of the aforesaid tabulation under Clause 12(A) would show that for a bidder to qualify in Category-A, the bidder itself should have had the past experience as stipulated in Column 3 of Table-1.0, and the bidder cannot seek to place reliance upon the past experience or eligibility of the foreign manufacturer. She submits that a perusal of Category-C of the tabulation would show that the situation when the bidder itself does not have the credentials to meet the qualifying eligibility criteria stipulated in Column 3 of Table 1.0, it is covered by Class/ Category-C. Such a bidder could not have applied as a Class/ Category-A bidder. The aforesaid stipulation in Class/ Category-C excludes from class/ category-A, cases where the bidder does not meet the past experience criteria on its own. Since Category/ Class
- C bidders include bidders who "do not have the credentials to meet the qualifying eligibility criteria stipulated in Col-3 of Table-1.0 on their own", therefore, a bidder, who is an Indian subsidiary of a foreign manufacturer, or an authorized Indian channel partner of a foreign manufacturer, who does not meet the eligibility criteria stipulated in Column-3 of Table 1.0 on its own, could bid as a Class/ Category-C bidder, and if a bidder chose to bid as a Class/ Category-A bidder, the bidder had to strictly comply with the qualifying requirements applicable to Class/ Category-A.
9. We have extracted Table-1.0 hereinabove. The said table inter alia stipulates in Clause 1.0(c) that "Each of the Qualifying Eligibility Criteria for Technical Evaluation depicted in below mentioned table needs to fulfilled / met by the supplier/bidder in order to successful in fulfilling/meeting the Qualifying Eligibility Criteria for Technical Evaluation." So far as Category-A bidders are concerned, they are covered by Column 3 of Table 1.0. Thus, to be eligible, as a Class/ Category 'A' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 12 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 bidder, the petitioner should have had past experience of having "successfully supplied and commissioned" "similar Machinery/ Plant/ Equipment" at least to the extent of two such machinery/plant/equipment. Admittedly, the petitioner by itself, has not made any supply in the past and is seeking to rely upon the past experience of the foreign manufacturer of which it is claimed to be a subsidiary.
10. Having heard learned counsels, and perused the aforesaid clauses closely, we are of the view that a conjoint reading of Category-A and Category-C as set out in the aforesaid tabulation shows that the Class/ Category-A bidder was obliged to, on its own, fulfil the qualifying eligibility criteria as stipulated in Column 3 of Table 1.0, and could not have relied upon the qualifying eligibility criteria of the foreign manufacturer of which the bidder was the subsidiary or a channel partner. If the interpretation as sought to be advanced by Mr. Tripathi were to be accepted, it would completely render the last stipulation of Category-C redundant. In our view, the decision in New Horizons Limited and Anr. (supra) is not attracted in the facts of the present case, since the terms and conditions of the NIT are express and do clearly contra indicate that the eligibility/ past credentials of the foreign manufacturer cannot be availed of by an Indian subsidiary or an Indian channel partner of the manufacturer, if the bidder chooses to bid as a Class/ Category-A bidder. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner was rightly declared as disqualified during technical evaluation.
11. Since respondent No.2 was the only bidder held to be technically qualified, the next question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is right in claiming that respondent No.2 was technically disqualified, and has wrongly been held to be qualified. Respondent No.2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 13 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 had made its bid as falling in Category-C. One of the requirements for a bidder falling in Category-C is that the bidder has to "declare during tender submission to supply from their manufacturing plant in India." Respondent No.2 in para "F" of their counter-affidavit at internal page 14 inter alia state as follows:
"F..It is correct that Answering Respondent is relying on a manufacturing plant in India owned by a third party and under Class C, the same is permissible after the manufacturer has given all necessary undertakings in this regard. It is denied that there was any wrongful action on the part of Respondent No.l and that there was any afterthought. In a Tender evaluation, it is settled law that if the criteria set out in the Tender is not met, no party can claim right to be awarded the contract."
12. On the aforesaid aspect being pointed out, Ms. Mahajan has submitted that the respondent No.2 had represented that it has a manufacturing plant in India, and respondent No.2 had also provided the MSME certificate. Respondent No.2 submits that she would like to file an additional affidavit to explain the position in this regard.
13. To examine the aforesaid aspect, we direct respondent No. 1 to file an affidavit placing on record the complete bid document and other correspondence submitted by respondent No.2. The representation held out by respondent No.2 to claim eligibility to be qualified as a bidder in Category-C should be clearly spelt out. Respondent No.1 should also state as to what action it proposes to take, in the eventuality of the respondent No.1 coming to the conclusion that respondent No.2 has made a false representation. Respondent No.2 may also file an additional affidavit to explain the aforesaid aspect. The affidavits of both the respondents should Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 14 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41 be filed in the next one week with copies to the petitioner. They shall also exchange their respective affidavits. The affidavits, so filed, may be responded to by the petitioner and the other respondent. Such response should be filed within one week of the filing of the affidavits.
14. List on 28.01.2022.
VIPIN SANGHI, J JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 11, 2022 sr Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT W.P.(C) 11610/2021 & connected. Page 15 of 15 ARORA Signing Date:27.01.2022 20:45:41