Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is a leading Financial Technology Company with a comprehensive portfolio of products, services and consulting. The petitioner, in the course of their business has been providing I.T. Services to the respondent for over twenty five years starting from 1987 till date. This has given the petitioner a rich experience in the respondent's Core Banking Solutions (CBS) product. The respondent's existing C.B.S. has been built with the petitioner's CBS product as a Core which co-exists with other vendor's products and solutions. It is also their case that 65% of the respondent's C.B.S. runs on the petitioner's intellect product. The constant follow up by the petitioner with the adequate number of supporting staff in all the branches in Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, etc., has ensured no system failure for the past 25 years with the Core EOD running time kept to the minimum of 90 to 105 minutes. This backup of the petitioner has helped the respondent to win several awards. Over the last 36 months alone, the petitioner has delivered over 32 different products and several of these are in the C.B.S. itself. The C.B.S. provided by the petitioner has about 108 modules, all served from one platform with delivery channels and the several third parties system integrated. The petitioner has invested by up-grading the existing Intellect Software to R12 version. This will be a single integrated CBS solution. In December, 2010, the petitioner proposed a gradual migration of their single integrated CBS Solution which would be smooth co-existent with the current CBS. The respondent had already invested in most of the necessary Hardware and the Environment Software and the upgrade to the R12 version would be not only cost effective, but also, would lead to minimal issues around migration and training. This would reduce the changed process for employees seamlessly. While so, the respondent by proceedings dated 12.12.2012 request for proposal for Core Banking Solution and other application implementation dated 12.01.2013 together with the RFP issued by the Information Technology Division of the respondent. The RFP was made available publicly on the respondent's website. The respondent appears to have blindly followed the recommendations of the technology and project management consultant in relation to the RFP without any independent application of mind. According to the RFP, the respondent is using COBOL (RM-COBOL) based Core Banking Application since 2003. The respondent migrated from COBOL based TBA to CBS from this petitioner's group company called Laser Soft Infosystems Limited. The RFP was for Supply, Designing, Procuring, Installation and Commissioning, Testing, Implementing, Integration and Maintaining an End to End Applications in business solutions, other business applications and other solutions, as detailed in the affidavit, including interfaces adequately sized Hardware, Software Applications, Tools, Utilities and facilities management as per the terms and conditions of RFP. According to the RFP, the existing CBS has been highly customized to the respondent's accounting procedures systems, processes and conventions. The existing CBS is as acceptable level of functionality and is user-friendly. The existing CBS has all modules relating to Domestic and Forex covering various Deposits, Loans, Remittances, Bills and Utility Services. The existing CBS system is an integrated system for Domestic, Forex and Service Branch function and having STP with delivery channels like ATM, Internet Banking, SMS/Mobile Banking, NEFT, RTGS, Financial Inclusion and AML/KYC, etc. The respondent has floated this RFP with a view to bring out an envisioned Core Banking Solution and other applications implementation and transformation through major transformation of their existing information technologies. In such circumstances, the petitioner as the existing vendor providing I.T. Services is better placed to bring to fruition such vision for a comprehensive CBS by the respondent. But, denial of such an opportunity to the petitioner as an incumbent vendor to participate in the RFP is arbitrary and discriminatory. Moreso when the petitioner's solutions are far less expensive and whose current solutions are admittedly user-friendly and accepted by the respondents. Thus, the RFP issued by the respondent is exfacie discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the unilateral decision in proceeding with the RFP instead of using the petitioner's services for the CBS is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. This migration and the interpolation of a new vendor for managing the CBS would result in enormous difficulties to public customers. Encouraging a new vendor would also result in substantial expenditure and would result in duplication of several items of work. The new vendor will require re-doing many items of work such as Software Interfaces, employee training, functional requirements, specifications study, business process definitions and customization etc. about which, the petitioner is already familiar with. The respondent being a State ought not to indulge in causing loss to public exchequer, investors and shareholders, as it would certainly result in wasteful expenditure by the respondent.

9.A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein they have reiterated the averments and allegations made in the main affidavit.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr.M.Muthukumarasamy for the respondent. I have also gone through the relevant documents made available on record including the counter  affidavit and reply  affidavit filed.

11.The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent's issue of Request for Proposal (RFP) for Core Banking Solutions and other applications implementation in RFP Ref.No.12/2012-13 dated 12.12.2012.

12.According to the petitioner, the respondent bank blindly followed the recommendations of the Technology and Project Management Consultant without any independent application of mind. It is the contention of the petitioner that being the existing vendor, the petitioner is better placed to bring to fruition such vision for a comprehensive Core Bank Solution by the respondent bank. The main contention of the petitioner is that the denial of opportunity to them as an incumbent vendor to participate in the RFP without any level playing ground is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is their case that their solutions are far less expensive and more user friendly.

15.I have gone through Annexure 01 which deals with eligibility criteria compliance and in particular Section II which deals with business solutions. In Section II(1), it is stated that the prime bidder should have had experience in implementation and roll out of the proposed core banking solutions in atleast 1000 branches of one public sector bank in India and Section II(2), it is stated that they should have end to end system integratopm experience in having implemented the proposed CBS comprising of atleast supply, commissioning, implementation and maintenance of hardware, software and storage in atleast 1000 branches of one public sector bank in India. In Section-II(3), it is stated that the prime bidder should have experience in customizing the proposed Core Banking Solution in atleast 1000 branches of one public sector bank in India and in Section II(4), it is stated that they should have experience in providing L1 and L2 Helpdesk support for the proposed CBS in atleast 1000 branches of one public sector bank in India. Section II(5), it is stated that the prime bidder should have had experience in application management comprising of Data Base Management System, Administration, interfaces and delivery channels in atleast 1000 branches of one public sector bank in India on the proposed CBS.